# Agile + Spec Driven Development + GitOps Documentation Framework This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It establishes a structured approach to creating, maintaining, and evolving technical documentation in alignment with GitOps principles—ensuring that documentation is versioned, auditable, and continuously validated alongside the codebase. --- ## The ASG Framework: Eight Pillars of Documentation | Document | Purpose | Primary Audience | Format / Content | Example (SaaS Context) | Measurement (KPI) | |----------|---------|-----------------|------------------|------------------------|-------------------| | **Requirements** | Capture the **business intent** — why we're building this and what success looks like. Defines boundaries and user-visible outcomes. | Stakeholders, Product Owners, Lead Developers | User stories, PRDs, acceptance criteria, non-functional constraints. | "System must process tabular data from Julia to SvelteKit UI with <200ms latency for 5-member teams." | 95% of requests complete <200ms (synthetic monitoring). | | **Solution Design** | Translate requirements into **a viable solution** — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers | Problem decomposition, solution approach, decision rationale, high-level component diagram, alternatives considered. | "Problem: Users need to compare wines. Solution: Build a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison. Components: Data layer (Wine API), UI layer (Table component), Logic layer (Filter/Sort engine)." | 0 solution components without a requirement ID reference. | | **Walkthrough** | The **end-to-end trace** — maps the entire system flow from startup to cycle completion for each participant. Provides a "big picture" view that validates solution design before technical specification is locked. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers, End Users | Per-participant sections, sequence diagrams, state machine diagrams. Explicitly links to `2-solution_design.md` and `1-requirements.md`. | "User logs in → selects wine → edits details → saves → backend validates against spec → UI updates with error states." | 100% of user journeys traced across all layers before implementation starts. | | **Specification** | The **technical contract** — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test. Maps technical implementation to both *what* (requirements) and *how* (solution design). | Developers, QA Engineers, CI/CD pipelines | OpenAPI, Protobuf, AsyncAPI. Endpoint definitions, schemas, error codes. | `contract.yaml` defining a NATS subject (solution-design SD-001.1) that accepts Arrow streams with snake_case headers (requirements FR-001). | 100% of messages validated against spec (CI block rate). | | **UI Specification** | The **design contract** — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation. | Product Designers, Frontend Developers, QA Engineers | Component libraries, style guides, interaction specs, design tokens. | Atomic design system with Figma tokens synced to CSS variables. | 100% of UI components match design spec (visual regression tests). | | **Validation** | The **enforcer** — defines tests before implementation begins to ensure spec compliance. Blocks drift and human error. | QA Engineers, Developers, Automation servers | Unit tests, integration tests, performance tests, penetration tests, contract tests, CI jobs, linting rules, schema validation. | CI job rejects PR with camelCase field not allowed by YAML spec. | <1% of PRs bypass validation gates. | | **Implementation Plan** | The **execution roadmap** — how implementation is organized, prioritized, and delivered. Maps code to validation tests and specification. | Developers, Project Managers, Lead Developers | Implementation plan, module breakdown, task list, delivery timeline, test strategy. | Phase 1: Core API + data layer; Phase 2: UI components; Phase 3: Integration tests + E2E validation. | 100% of validation tests covered by implementation tasks, <10% timeline drift. | | **Runbook** | The **operational manual** — how the system lives in production, scales, and recovers. Guides on-call engineers. | DevOps, SREs, On-call Developers | K8s manifests, Helm charts, Markdown guides. Deployment, scaling, backup/restore, troubleshooting. | GitOps manifest ensuring 6 Julia replicas restart if memory >80%. | MTTR <15 minutes for P1 incidents. | --- ## Detailed Document Descriptions ### 1. Requirements `1-requirements.md` **Purpose**: Capture the *business intent* — why we're building this and what success looks like. Defines boundaries and user-visible outcomes. **Why It Matters**: - Aligns engineering efforts with business goals - Provides a north star for feature development - Establishes acceptance criteria before implementation begins - Creates a contract between product, engineering, security, and operations. **Content Guidelines**: - User stories with clear acceptance criteria (As a X, I want Y so that Z) - **Functional Requirements (FR)**: Testable features with clear IDs (e.g., `FR-001`, `FR-101`). Each functional requirement must be linked to a measurable KPI in the success metrics section. - **Non-Functional Requirements (NFR)**: Qualities or constraints the system must have (performance, scalability, availability, reliability, security, privacy, observability). NFRs define *what kind of system* you need, not *what it does*. - Example NFR: "System shall support 10K TPS" (requirement) - Example KPI: "95th percentile latency <200ms" (measurable success metric) - **Success Metrics & KPIs**: Specific, measurable targets that validate whether requirements were met. KPIs are *measured after deployment*; NFRs are *defined before implementation*. - Boundary definitions that state what is in scope and out of scope. - Security requirements including threat model outcomes, authentication and authorization expectations, data classification, encryption requirements, and compliance controls. - Observability requirements specifying required telemetry, metrics, traces, logs, alerting thresholds, and retention policies. - Traceability Rule: Requirements must be self-contained (no cross-references to other docs as justification), but must include IDs (e.g., FR-001) so downstream artifacts (spec, UI spec, architecture) can trace back. All downstream documents MUST cite requirement IDs, but requirements themselves stand alone. Walkthrough steps (WT-XXX) may also cite requirement IDs directly. **Best Practices**: - **Link each requirement to a measurable KPI** — functional requirements should have explicit KPIs; non-functional requirements should have measurable thresholds - Keep requirements testable and verifiable - Maintain backward compatibility with existing requirements - Review and update requirements as business context changes --- ### 2. Solution Design `2-solution_design.md` **Purpose**: Translate requirements into **a viable solution** — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details. **Why It Matters**: - Prevents technical-first thinking that skips design decisions - Ensures the solution addresses the actual user problem, not just requirements - Enables architects to evaluate alternatives before committing to technical details - Creates alignment between product, design, and engineering on the approach - Provides a reference for evaluating specification choices against intended solution **Content Guidelines**: - Problem decomposition: Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces - Solution approach: Introduce the solution the way Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone — present what you're delivering to the user first, then explain how it solves their problem. The narrative starts with the product, not the technical components. (e.g., "We're building a comparison table that lets users evaluate wines side-by-side with instant filtering and sorting" — not "We'll use event sourcing with a caching layer") - Decision rationale: Explain the design reasoning behind each major decision — why the solution was designed this way, and how each decision connects to form a cohesive approach that solves the user problem. (e.g., "We chose server-side rendering so shared comparisons are indexable by search engines, enabling retailers to distribute links without login walls") - High-level component diagram: Show major components and their relationships (not technical details, just the big picture) - Alternatives considered: Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale for why they were rejected - Risk assessment: Identify potential risks and how they will be mitigated - Traceability: Link each solution component to specific requirement ID(s) (e.g., FR-001, NFR-201) that it addresses - Decision IDs: Assign unique IDs to major decisions using the format `SD-XXX` (e.g., `SD-001` for "Use NATS for async messaging") to enable specification traceability **Best Practices**: - Write solution design from the user's perspective first, then justify technical choices - Keep it high-level—avoid technical specifics (API endpoints, data schemas, etc.) - Use diagrams that are easy to update (Mermaid.js) - Document trade-off decisions explicitly - Review solution design against requirements to verify completeness - Create walkthroughs to validate the solution design end-to-end; sign-off from product, architecture, and engineering happens after walkthroughs confirm the approach works **Gap-Check Question**: Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does? **Example Gap**: Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature. --- ### 3. Walkthrough `3-walkthrough.md` (single file with per-participant sections) **Primary Audience**: Product Owners, Architects, Developers, End Users **Purpose**: The *end-to-end trace* — each section maps one system participant's complete journey from their own POV, from session start to task completion. Provides a "big picture" view that validates solution design before technical specification is locked. Each section is standalone: described entirely from that participant's perspective, with cross-references to other participants' sections where their workflows intersect. **Per-Participant Walkthroughs** The walkthrough is organized as one document with a dedicated section per system participant, each tracing the complete journey from that participant's perspective. - Traces the complete flow from that participant's login/session start to task completion and logout - Explicitly references steps where other participants' actions are triggered (e.g., "Customer places order → see Retailer section step 4.2") - Shows error paths, edge cases, and recovery from that participant's perspective - Uses sequence diagrams to illustrate interactions across participants **Why It Matters**: - Each section is written entirely from one participant's POV — what they see, do, and achieve - Each participant sees their complete end-to-end journey in a standalone walkthrough section - Participants understand how their actions trigger or depend on other participants' workflows - Validates that all components (UI, API, backend logic) work together cohesively before implementation begins - Exposes solution design gaps and integration risks between participant workflows early in the design phase - Provides a reference for verifying implementation against intended behavior and for tracing requirements through to architecture **Content Guidelines**: - One section per system participant, starting from their login/session start to task completion - End-to-end flow: what the participant sees, does, and achieves at each step - Cross-references to other participants' sections where workflows intersect (e.g., "Customer order placed → see Retailer section step 4.2") - External interactions (user actions, API calls, third-party integrations) - Internal flow (state transitions, business logic, data transformations) triggered by the participant's actions - Error paths and edge cases specific to that participant's journey - Sequence diagrams showing request/response patterns across participants for complex multi-user flows - State machine diagrams for workflows that span multiple participants - Each major walkthrough step must cite the exact **Solution Design decision ID(s)** (e.g., SD-001, SD-002) from `2-solution_design.md` and/or **Requirement ID(s)** from `1-requirements.md` that it implements or depends on. - Assign a unique ID to each walkthrough step using the format `WT-XXX` (e.g., `WT-001` for Participant A login, `WT-002` for Participant B order placement) to enable downstream traceability **Best Practices**: - Write each section from one participant's perspective, then cross-reference other participants' sections - Include concrete examples with realistic data values for each participant's typical usage - Link each step to its corresponding Solution Design decision (SD-XXX.Y IDs), Requirement ID(s), and Walkthrough ID (WT-XXX) - Map cross-participant interactions explicitly (e.g., "Customer action X → Retailer notification Y") - Document failure modes and recovery paths from each participant's perspective - Keep walkthroughs updated as requirements and participant roles evolve - Review walkthroughs against the solution design to verify completeness across all participants --- ### 4. Specification `4-specification.md` **Purpose**: The *technical contract* — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test. Maps technical implementation to both *what* (requirements) and *how* (solution design). **Why It Matters**: - Prevents implementation drift between components - Enables contract testing in CI/CD pipelines - Provides a single source of truth for data structures - Facilitates integration between teams - Enables traceability from business requirements to technical implementation **Content Guidelines**: - API endpoint definitions (methods, paths, parameters) - Request/response schemas (JSON, XML, Protobuf, AsyncAPI) - Error codes and their meanings - Data validation rules and constraints - Rate limiting and quota definitions - Assign a unique ID to each specification item using the format `SP-XXX` (e.g., `SP-001` for the Request schema, `SP-002` for POST endpoint) for downstream traceability - Each specification item must cite: - **Requirement ID(s)** from `1-requirements.md` (e.g., FR-001, NFR-201) — defines *what* the system must do - **Solution Design reference(s)** from `2-solution_design.md` (e.g., SD-001.1, SD-002.1) — defines *how* and *why* this technical approach was chosen - Link each endpoint, schema, validation rule, error case, etc to the exact requirement(s) and solution design it implements or satisfies. **Best Practices**: - Use formal specification languages (OpenAPI 3.0+, AsyncAPI) - Version specifications alongside code - Generate client SDKs from specifications - Block CI on specification violations - Document edge cases and error scenarios --- ### 5. UI Specification `5-ui_specification.md` **Purpose**: The *design contract* — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation. **Why It Matters**: - Prevents visual inconsistency across the application - Enables design system scalability and maintainability - Provides a single source of truth for UI components and interactions - Facilitates collaboration between designers and developers - Enables traceability from business requirements to UI implementation **Content Guidelines**: - Component specifications (atomic design principles) - Style guide (colors, typography, spacing, icons) - Interaction patterns (animations, transitions, states) - Design tokens (CSS variables, Figma tokens) - Accessibility standards (WCAG compliance) - Responsive design breakpoints and layouts - Each UI specification artifact must cite the specific requirement ID(s) from `1-requirements.md` and/or the exact solution design decision ID(s) from `2-solution_design.md` that it implements or depends on - Assign a unique ID to each UI artifact using the format `UI-XXX` (e.g., `UI-001` for Login Form, `UI-002` for Wine Table) to enable downstream traceability **Best Practices**: - Use design systems with versioned component libraries - Sync design tokens from Figma to CSS variables automatically - Document component states (normal, hover, disabled, error) - Include accessibility requirements for each component - Create visual regression tests for critical UI flows - Version UI specifications alongside code --- ### 6. Validation `6-validation.md` **Purpose**: The *enforcer* — defines tests **before implementation begins** to ensure spec compliance. Blocks drift and human error. Because implementation must satisfy specifications, Validation derives all test definitions from the preceding 5 documents: | Source Document | What Validation Tests | |-----------------|----------------------| | **1. Requirements** | NFR thresholds (latency, throughput), security constraints, observability checks | | **2. Solution Design** | Architectural decisions, performance choices, risk mitigations | | **3. Walkthrough** | End-to-end flows for each participant section, cross-participant interactions | | **4. Specification** | API contracts, data schemas, error codes, validation rules | | **5. UI Specification** | Component states, visual patterns, accessibility compliance | Every specification rule, walkthrough journey, and NFR threshold must have a corresponding test — each spec item carries an `SP-XXX` ID, every walkthrough step carries a `WT-XXX` ID, and every UI artifact carries a `UI-XXX` ID. Tests are written before code so implementation can be validated as it's built. If a spec rule, walkthrough journey, NFR threshold, or UI state has no corresponding test, the Validation doc is incomplete. **Test Types** Each validation test must include explicit references to its source document: | Test Type | Source | Example Reference | |-----------|--------|-------------------| | **Unit tests** | `4-specification.md`, `5-ui_specification.md` | `4-specification.md:3.2.1` rejects camelCase headers; `5-ui_specification.md:## Wine Table` sort states | | **Integration tests** | `3-walkthrough.md`, `4-specification.md` | `WT-001` Participant A login → endpoint chain in `4-specification.md`; `SP-002` | | **Performance tests** | `1-requirements.md` NFRs, `2-solution_design.md` | `NFR-101` latency threshold; `SD-002` WebSocket performance decision | | **Penetration tests** | `1-requirements.md` security NFRs, `4-specification.md` auth endpoints | `NFR-301` authentication; `4-specification.md:auth/login` endpoint | | **Contract tests** | `4-specification.md` sections | Mapped to endpoint definitions and schema constraints | | **Linting rules** | `5-ui_specification.md` style guides | Enforcing design tokens from `5-ui_specification.md` | | **Schema validation** | `4-specification.md` data schemas | Validating Arrow stream headers (snake_case), JSON payloads | | **Visual regression** | `5-ui_specification.md` component states | Verifying hover, disabled, error states match spec | | **Security scanning** | `1-requirements.md`, `4-specification.md` | SAST, dependency vulnerability checks, OWASP rules | | **CI/CD pipeline** | All test types above | Automated execution on every commit and PR | **Specification-to-Test Execution Trace** Every traceable item — specification rules (SP-XXX), walkthrough journeys (WT-XXX), UI artifacts (UI-XXX), NFR thresholds, and SD decisions — must have a runnable, verifiable test. This trace maps each item to its corresponding test file, test function, and CI gate — proving that every requirement was tested, not just claimed. **Trace Format**: | Requirement/Spec ID | Participant | Source Path | Unit Test File | Unit Test Function | Additional Test File(s) | CI Gate | Status | |---------------------|-------------|-------------|----------------|-------------------|------------------------|---------|--------| | SP-001 | — | `4-specification.md#/components/schemas/Request` | `tests/unit/schema-validation.test.ts` | `test_rejects_camelCase_headers` | — | `ci/contract-validation.yaml` | Pass | | SP-002 | — | `4-specification.md#/paths/~1api~1v1~1endpoint` | `tests/unit/api-routes.test.ts` | `test_post_wine_returns_201` | `tests/integration/wine-flow.test.ts` | `ci/contract-validation.yaml` | Pass | | WT-001 | Customer | `3-walkthrough.md:#login` | `tests/integration/customer-login.test.ts` | `test_login_flow` | — | `ci/integration.yaml` | Pass | | WT-002 | Retailer | `3-walkthrough.md:#order` | `tests/integration/retailer-order.test.ts` | `test_order_placement` | — | `ci/integration.yaml` | Pass | | NFR-101 | — | `1-requirements.md:4.1` | — | — | `tests/performance/load.test.ts` | `ci/performance.yaml` | Pass | | SD-001 | — | `2-solution_design.md:5.1` | — | — | `tests/integration/nats-async.test.ts` | `ci/integration.yaml` | Pass | | UI-001 | — | `5-ui_specification.md## Wine Table` | `tests/unit/wine-table.test.tsx` | `test_sort_by_name` | `tests/visual/wine-table.spec.js` | `ci/visual-regression.yaml` | Pass | **Additional Test File(s)** column covers: unit tests (spec rules, UI states), integration tests (WT walkthrough flows), performance tests (NFR benchmarks), penetration tests (security NFRs), contract tests (endpoint/schema pairs), linting rules (design tokens), schema validation (data schemas), security scanning (SAST/dependency checks), and visual regression tests (UI component states). **Trace Rules**: - **Every** specification section with a concrete rule (endpoint, schema field, validation constraint, error code) must have at least one unit test and one contract test — each spec item carries an `SP-XXX` ID - **Every** walkthrough journey must have at least one integration test — each walkthrough step carries a `WT-XXX` ID - **Every** performance NFR must have at least one performance test (load/stress/benchmark) - **Every** security NFR must have at least one penetration test scenario - **Every** UI component state must have at least one unit test (behavior) and one visual regression test (appearance) — each UI artifact carries a `UI-XXX` ID - **Every** data schema must have at least one schema validation test - **Every** style guide token must have at least one linting rule - **Every** security NFR must have at least one security scanning test (SAST/dependency checks) - A test may cover multiple spec items, but each spec item must be covered by **at least one** test - Status is tracked via CI gate results (Pass/Fail/Skipped) — not manual checks **Best Practices**: - Define tests **before** writing implementation code - Fail CI on specification violations - Run validation jobs on every commit and PR - Use automated code review tools - Maintain validation job health dashboard - Document validation failure remediation steps **How to Maintain**: 1. When writing a new spec rule, assign an SP-XXX ID; when writing walkthrough steps assign WT-XXX; when defining UI artifacts assign UI-XXX; when creating implementation tasks assign IMP-XXX — then add trace rows **before** implementation 2. When writing the test, fill in the test file and function 3. CI gate auto-updates Status from pipeline results 4. **Gap-Check Step 5** (Validation Review) verifies 100% row coverage — no traceable item without a test **Tooling** (optional): - Use YAML or JSON files (e.g., `validation/test-trace.yaml`) as machine-readable trace data - Generate CI reports that auto-populate the Status column from pipeline results - Use tools like `cypress open` for E2E traces, `k6` for performance traces, `owasp-zap` for pen test traces - Integrate trace data into PR descriptions so reviewers can verify coverage before merge --- ### 7. Implementation Plan `7-implementation-plan.md` **Why It Matters**: - Converts specification into executable code with clear ownership and timeline - Enables parallel development across teams by defining module boundaries - Provides visibility into progress and blockers for stakeholders - Ensures all validation tests are covered by implementation tasks **Content Guidelines**: - Implementation phases and timeline (e.g., Phase 1: Core API + data layer; Phase 2: UI components; Phase 3: Integration tests + E2E validation) - Module/component breakdown with responsibilities and dependencies - Task list with assignees, priorities, estimated effort — assign unique task IDs using the format `IMP-XXX` (e.g., `IMP-001` for Core API implementation) - Test coverage: which validation tests each IMP-XXX task satisfies - Build and deployment preparation (CI/CD setup, environment configuration) - Risk mitigation: known blockers and mitigation steps **Best Practices**: - Break implementation into small, testable increments (1-3 day task units) - Assign an `IMP-XXX` ID to each implementation task and map it to specific validation tests it satisfies - Define clear ownership for each module or component - Include test coverage targets for each phase - Document dependencies between modules to avoid blocking work - Review implementation plan against validation tests to ensure complete coverage --- ### 8. Runbook `8-runbook.md` **Purpose**: The *operational manual* — how the system lives in production, scales, and recovers. Guides on-call engineers. **Why It Matters**: - Reduces Mean Time To Recovery (MTTR) for incidents - Provides step-by-step guidance for common issues - Documents scaling and deployment procedures - Ensures operational knowledge is not siloed **Content Guidelines**: - Deployment procedures (manual and automated) - Scaling instructions (horizontal/vertical) - Backup and restore procedures - Troubleshooting guides for common issues - Runbook entries for specific error codes - Contact information and escalation paths - Explicit references to [`4-specification.md`](4-specification.md) (API contracts, data schemas, specific endpoint sections) - Explicit references to [`5-ui_specification.md`](5-ui_specification.md) (components, interactions, visual states, specific component sections) **Best Practices**: - Write runbooks for every P1/P2 incident - Include exact commands and configuration snippets - Test runbooks periodically (chaos engineering) - Link runbook entries to relevant documentation - Keep runbooks updated when system changes --- ## How to Use This Approach Effectively ### 1. Start with Requirements Before writing any code or documentation, establish clear requirements. Ask: - What business problem are we solving? - How will we measure success? - What are the non-negotiable constraints? **Action**: Create a `docs/requirements/` directory and start with `PRD.md` and `KPIs.md`. ### 2. Define Solution Design Once requirements are stable, translate them into a viable solution. This ensures the technical approach solves the user problem, not just requirements. **Action**: Create `docs/solution-design/` with `2-solution_design.md`, problem decomposition, solution approach, decision rationale, high-level component diagram, and alternatives considered. ### 3. Create Walkthroughs Early As soon as the solution design is defined, create walkthroughs — one document with a section per system participant. This helps identify gaps in each participant's flow and provides onboarding material. Each section traces the complete journey from that participant's perspective and cross-references other participants' workflows. The walkthrough should explicitly link to `2-solution_design.md` (SD-XXX.Y IDs) and `1-requirements.md`. **Action**: Create `docs/walkthrough/` with `3-walkthrough.md` containing one section per participant (e.g., Customer, Retailer, Admin), sequence diagrams, and cross-references to `2-solution_design.md` (SD-XXX.Y IDs) and `1-requirements.md`. ### 4. Define the Specification With walkthrough in place, define the technical specification. This becomes the contract for implementation. Each specification item must trace to **both**: - **Requirements** (WHAT - business intent) - **Solution Design** (HOW/WHY - architectural decisions) **Action**: Create `docs/specification/` with `contract.yaml` (or appropriate format), `error-codes.md`, and traceability mappings to `1-requirements.md`, `2-solution_design.md`, and `3-walkthrough.md`. Each specification item must have an `SP-XXX` ID. ### 5. Define UI Specification Early Create UI specifications before implementing frontend components. This ensures design consistency and provides a contract for implementation. **Action**: Create `docs/ui-specification/` with `component-library.md`, `style-guide.md`, and `design-tokens.json`. Each UI artifact must have a `UI-XXX` ID. ### 6. Define Validation Tests Before Implementation Write validation tests **before** implementation begins. This ensures every specification rule (SP-XXX), walkthrough journey (WT-XXX), UI state (UI-XXX), and NFR threshold has a corresponding test that defines success. Tests should reference `4-specification.md`, `5-ui_specification.md`, `3-walkthrough.md`, `1-requirements.md` (NFR thresholds), and `2-solution_design.md` (performance decisions). Create a specification-to-test execution trace that maps every spec item to its test file, test function, and CI gate. **Action**: Create `docs/validation/` with `unit-tests/` (spec rules, schema fields, component states), `integration-tests/` (WT-XXX walkthrough flows), `performance-tests/` (NFR benchmarks: latency, TPS), `penetration-tests/` (security NFRs, auth flows), `contract-tests/`, `ci-pipeline.yaml`, `lint-rules/`, and `test-trace.yaml` (specification-to-test execution trace mapping every spec path to its test file, test function, and CI gate). ### 7. Create Implementation Plan With validation tests defined, create the implementation plan. Assign `IMP-XXX` IDs to each task and map them to the specific validation tests they must satisfy. **Action**: Create `docs/implementation-plan/` with `7-implementation-plan.md` containing phases, module breakdown, task list with assignees/priorities/effort (`IMP-XXX` IDs), and test coverage targets. ### 8. Document Operations from Day One Create runbook entries as soon as deployment procedures are established. Update them when incidents occur. **Action**: Create `docs/runbook/` with entries for deployment, scaling, and common issues. --- ## The Gap-Check Process Since all docs defined in the ASG Framework are **living documents** that evolve throughout the project lifecycle, this Gap-Check process ensures each documentation stage validates the previous one before moving forward. | Stage Transition | Goal | Gap-Check Question | Example Gap | Result | |------------------|------|-------------------|-------------|--------| | **Requirements → Solution Design** | Turn a "Wish" into a "Solution" | Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does? | Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature | Add UI flow and user interaction patterns to the solution design | | **Solution Design → Walkthrough** | Turn a "Solution" into a "Story" | Does every SD-XXX decision appear in at least one participant's walkthrough section? Is there a WT-XXX ID for every walkthrough step? Is there a section for each system participant? | Solution design defines SD-001 (NATS async messaging), but no participant section traces the async flow | Add an async messaging flow to Participant B section with SD-001 reference and WT-003 ID | | **Walkthrough → Specification** | Turn the "Story" into "Rules" | Does the Specification define SP-XXX rules for every WT-XXX walkthrough step? | Walkthrough defines 20 WT-XXX steps across 3 participants, but Specification only has SP-001 through SP-005 (10 items) | Add the missing endpoint definitions, schema rules, and error codes to Specification with SP-006 through SP-020 | | **Specification → UI Specification** | Turn a "Rule" into a "Button" | Does the UI Specification expose all data entities and states defined in the Specification? Are UI-XXX IDs assigned to every UI artifact? | Specification defines 15 API response schemas with 30 fields, but UI Specification only has 3 components (UI-001 through UI-003) | Add the remaining UI components for each data entity with UI-XXX IDs to match Specification coverage | **UI Specification → Validation** | Turn "Design" into "Tests" | Do the Validation tests cover all specification rules, UI states, performance NFRs, and security requirements? | UI Spec defines 15 component states but Validation only has 5 unit tests; NFR-101 latency threshold has no performance test | Add unit tests for all component states, performance benchmarks for NFR thresholds, and pen test scenarios for security NFRs | | **Validation → Implementation Plan** | Turn "Tests" into "Tasks" | Does the Implementation Plan satisfy all validation tests with clear ownership? | Validation defines 30 test cases but Implementation Plan only has tasks for 20 | Verify every validation test maps to at least one implementation task with an assignee and timeline | ### Why Gap-Checks Matter - **Prevent rework**: Catch missing requirements before coding begins - **Ensure completeness**: Verify all scenarios are covered across all layers - **Validate feasibility**: Confirm technical approach supports the intended user flow - **Maintain alignment**: Keep all stakeholders (product, design, dev) on the same page ### How to Run Gap-Checks 1. **Requirements Review**: After writing requirements, ask "What happens if X?" for each user story 2. **Solution Design Review**: After writing solution design, verify every requirement is addressed by at least one solution component with a corresponding requirement ID reference 3. **Walkthrough Review**: After writing walkthrough, verify every SD-XXX.Y decision, requirement ID, and WT-XXX walkthrough step is traced in every participant section with error paths included, and that each system participant has a dedicated section 4. **Specification Review**: After writing the spec, verify every spec item has: - An `SP-XXX` ID assigned for downstream traceability - At least one requirement ID reference (WHAT) - At least one solution design reference (HOW/WHY) - Coverage for all behaviors defined in each participant section 5. **UI Specification Review**: After writing UI Specification, verify every `UI-XXX` artifact has a corresponding requirement ID, solution design reference, and specification ID 6. **Validation Review**: After writing Validation, verify every specification section and UI state has at least one corresponding test case — unit tests for SP-XXX spec rules and UI-XXX UI states, integration tests for WT-XXX walkthrough flows, performance tests for NFR thresholds, penetration test scenarios for security NFRs, contract tests for SP-XXX endpoint/schema definitions, linting rule coverage for `5-ui_specification.md` style guides, schema validation for all data schemas, and security scanning for all security NFRs — each with explicit references to `4-specification.md`, `5-ui_specification.md`, `3-walkthrough.md`, and/or `1-requirements.md` 7. **Implementation Plan Review**: After writing the plan, verify every validation test is covered by at least one implementation task with an assignee and timeline --- ## The Pre-Code Debugging Habit This habit ensures that each documentation stage is complete and validated before moving forward. These checklists serve as mental guards against building features that don't meet the requirements or architecture. | Stage | Debug Checklist | Why It Matters | |-------|-----------------|----------------| | **Requirements** | If I can't state the Value, I'm building a feature nobody needs. | Clarifies the business impact before technical discussion begins | | **Solution Design** | If I can't see the Solution, I'm building without a compass. | Ensures the technical approach solves the user problem before spec writing | | **Walkthrough** | If I can't Trace every participant's flow with **WT-XXX** IDs, the system has broken bridges. | Identifies gaps between components and validates the solution design end-to-end for each system participant | | **Specification** | If I can't write a Rule with a requirement and solution design reference, I haven't thought the logic through. | Ensures traceability from technical rules to both business requirements (*what*) and architectural decisions (*how/why*) | | **UI Specification** | If I can't See it with a **UI-XXX** ID and traceability reference, the user has no way to trigger the logic. | Ensures traceability from UI elements to business requirements | | **Validation** | If I can't Write a Test for every traceable item, implementation is untestable. | Ensures code can be tested from day one — unit, integration, performance, contract, and security tests define success before implementation begins | **How to Use This Habit:** 1. **Before writing each doc**, run through the checklist for that stage 2. **Before moving to the next doc**, run through the checklist for the current stage 3. **When reviewing docs**, use the checklist to verify completeness This habit turns documentation into a self-validating process—each stage catches gaps from the previous one before they become bugs in production. --- ## GitOps Integration This documentation framework aligns with GitOps principles: | GitOps Principle | Documentation Alignment | |------------------|------------------------| | **Versioned** | All documentation lives in git, with history and audit trail | | **Declarative** | Specifications and architecture are declarative contracts | | **Automated** | Validation jobs automate spec compliance checks | | **Self-Service** | Walkthroughs and runbooks enable self-service onboarding and operations | | **Observability** | KPIs and metrics are defined for each documentation artifact | --- ## Metrics and Continuous Improvement Each documentation artifact has associated KPIs. Track these to ensure quality: | Document | KPI | Target | |----------|-----|--------| | Requirements | Requirement coverage | 100% of features have associated requirements | | Solution Design | Solution completeness | 0 solution components without a requirement ID reference | | Walkthrough | Participant coverage | 100% of identified system participants have a walkthrough section | | Specification | Specification compliance rate | 100% of messages validate against spec | | UI Specification | UI spec compliance | 100% of components match design spec (visual regression tests) | | Validation | Bypass rate | <1% of PRs bypass validation gates | | Implementation | Test coverage | >80% unit test coverage | | Runbook | MTTR | <15 minutes for P1 incidents | **Review Cadence**: - Weekly: Review KPI dashboards and documentation gaps - Monthly: Update documentation based on incident learnings - Quarterly: Full framework review and improvement --- ## Deployment Decision Rules These rules define the critical gates that must be passed before and after deployment: - **Acceptance Condition NOT met → Don't deploy** (buggy/broken) - **KPI NOT met after deployment → Deployed feature is failing business goals (need fix/optimization)** **Acceptance Conditions** are verified *before deployment* through testing and validation. They determine whether the implementation matches the specification and is ready for production. **KPIs** are measured *after deployment* to validate whether the feature is achieving its business goals. If KPIs are not met, the feature may be deployed but is failing its intended purpose and requires immediate attention (fixes or optimization). These rules serve as a binary decision framework: - Acceptance Conditions = **Quality Gate** (deploy or block) - KPIs = **Business Health Monitor** (deploy but fix if failing) --- ## Template Examples ### Requirements Template ```markdown # PRD: Feature Name ## 1. Business Context & Success Metrics ### Business Goal [Clear statement of the business problem being solved and why] ### User Stories - **US-XXX**: [User story with clear action and value] - *Example: US-001 - As a wine retailer customer, I want to access the sommpanion chat so that I can get wine-related help quickly* ### KPIs & Targets - **KPI-XXX**: [Measurable target with validation reference] - *Example: KPI-001 - 95% of chat messages receive responses within 3 seconds (validates FR-001)* ## 2. Technical Boundaries ### In Scope [List features and capabilities included in this release] ### Out of Scope [List features explicitly excluded from this release] ### Dependencies [List external services, APIs, or systems this feature depends on] ### Deployment Constraints - **NFR-XXX**: [Deployment-specific requirement] - *Example: NFR-501 - System shall be deployed to MicroK8s cluster with relative URL support* ## 3. Functional Requirements (FR) ### FR-XXX: [Requirement Title] [Detailed description of what the system shall do] - [Specific behavior 1] - [Specific behavior 2] - [Specific behavior 3] **Traceability**: US-XXX, US-XXX ### FR-XXX: [Requirement Title] [Detailed description of what the system shall do] - [Specific behavior 1] **Traceability**: US-XXX ## 4. Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) ### 4.1 Performance & Scalability - **NFR-XXX**: [Performance requirement with measurable threshold] - *Example: NFR-101 - Support page shall load in <1 second on 3G networks* ### 4.2 Availability & Reliability - **NFR-XXX**: [Reliability requirement] - *Example: NFR-201 - Chat functionality shall have 99.9% monthly uptime* ### 4.3 Privacy & Security - **Data Classification**: [e.g., PII, PHI, commercial data] - **Encryption**: [e.g., TLS 1.3+, AES-256 at rest] - **Authentication**: [e.g., Session-based, OAuth2, API keys] - **Compliance**: [e.g., GDPR Art. 32, SOC2 Type II, HIPAA] ### 4.4 Observability & Telemetry - **Required Logs**: [e.g., `session_id`, `user_id`, `message_id`, `event_type`, `timestamp`, `latency_ms`] - **Critical Metrics**: - `metric_name_1` - `metric_name_2` - **Tracing**: [e.g., Zipkin/B3 propagation, 10% sampling] - **Alerting**: [e.g., `chat_delivery_rate < 95%` triggers PagerDuty] - **Retention**: [e.g., Logs: 30 days, Metrics: 1 year] ## 5. Acceptance Conditions - [ ] **FR-XXX**: [Verifiable acceptance condition] - [ ] **FR-XXX**: [Verifiable acceptance condition] - [ ] **NFR-XXX**: [Verifiable acceptance condition] - *Example: [ ] FR-001: Sommpanion landing page renders with all required elements* ## 6. Requirements Traceability Matrix | Requirement ID | WT ID | SP ID | UI ID | IMP ID | Description | Implementation File | Test File | |----------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------------|---------------------|-----------| | FR-XXX | WT-XXX | SP-XXX | UI-XXX | IMP-XXX | [Brief description] | `path/to/file.ext` | `tests/file.spec.js` | | NFR-XXX | WT-XXX | SP-XXX | UI-XXX | IMP-XXX | [Brief description] | `path/to/file.ext` | `tests/file.spec.js` | **Notes**: - Functional Requirements (FR) define what the system shall do - Non-Functional Requirements (NFR) define system qualities (performance, availability, security, etc.) - **WT-XXX** IDs link requirements to walkthrough journey steps in `3-walkthrough.md` - **SP-XXX** IDs are assigned to each specification item in `4-specification.md` for downstream traceability (Validation, Implementation Plan) - **UI-XXX** IDs are assigned to each UI artifact in `5-ui_specification.md` for downstream traceability (Validation, Implementation Plan) - **IMP-XXX** IDs are assigned to each implementation task in `7-implementation-plan.md` for downstream mapping to validation tests - KPIs are measurable targets that validate whether requirements were met post-deployment - Each requirement must include a clear requirement ID for traceability - All acceptance conditions must be verifiable through testing or manual inspection ``` ### Solution Design Template ```markdown # Solution Design: Feature Name ## 1. Problem Decomposition Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces. | Problem | Description | User Impact | |---------|-------------|-------------| | [Problem ID] | Brief description of the problem | How this affects the user | **Example**: - **P-001**: Users cannot compare multiple wines side-by-side → They must navigate between wine pages, losing context and making comparisons difficult ## 2. Solution Approach Describe the high-level approach to solving the problem. **Approach**: [e.g., "Implement a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison features"] **Key Principles**: - [e.g., "Keep comparison data in memory for instant updates"] - [e.g., "Use server-side rendering for SEO"] - [e.g., "Support unlimited wine comparisons for power users"] ## 3. Decision Rationale Explain the design reasoning behind each major decision — why the solution was designed this way, and how each decision connects to form a cohesive approach that solves the user problem. | Decision ID | Decision | Rationale | Alternatives Rejected | |-------------|----------|-----------|----------------------| | SD-001 | Use NATS for async messaging | Required for real-time messaging with low overhead | Kafka - too complex for current scale | | SD-002 | Use WebSockets for real-time updates | Required for <100ms feedback | REST polling - too slow, too many requests | | SD-003 | Store comparison list in localStorage | Allows offline comparison editing | Redux - overkill for this feature | | SD-004 | Server-side rendering for comparison view | SEO for comparison pages shared via unique links | Client-side rendering - no SEO benefit | | SD-005 | Server-side PDF/CSV export | Generates downloadable exports with user data | Client-side export — requires user browser permissions | ## 4. High-Level Component Diagram ```mermaid %%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#3b82f6'}}}%% flowchart TD A[User] --> B[Comparison UI] B --> C[Comparison State] B --> D[Wine API] C --> D ``` **Component Descriptions**: - **[Component Name]**: [Brief description of responsibilities and how it solves part of the problem] - Links to requirements: FR-001, NFR-201 ## 5. Alternatives Considered Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale. | Alternative | Pros | Cons | Decision | |-------------|------|------|----------| | Client-side comparison | Fast updates, no server load | Memory-intensive, no sharing | Rejected - memory constraints on mobile | | Server-side comparison | Centralized, scalable | Latency, complex state sync | Accepted - matches performance requirements | | Hybrid approach | Best of both worlds | Complex, hard to maintain | Rejected - over-engineering | ## 6. Risk Assessment Identify potential risks and mitigation strategies. | Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation | |------|--------|-------------|------------| | Performance degradation with >5 wines | High | Medium | Implement performance profiling, limit to 10 wines max | | Race conditions in real-time updates | Medium | Low | Use optimistic updates with rollback | | Memory leaks from comparison state | Medium | Medium | Implement cleanup on unmount, use weak references | ## 7. Requirements Traceability Link each solution component to specific requirements and assign Solution Design IDs for specification traceability. | Solution Component | Requirement ID | Decision ID | Description | |-------------------|----------------|-------------|-------------| | Comparison table UI | FR-101 | SD-001 | Display wines in table format (uses NATS messaging) | | Filtering | FR-102 | SD-003 | Filter wines by criteria (stored in localStorage) | | Sorting | FR-103 | SD-004 | Sort wines by any column (stored in localStorage) | | Real-time updates | NFR-201 | SD-002 | Updates appear within 100ms (uses WebSocket) | | Export comparison | FR-201 | SD-005 | Export comparison to PDF/CSV (uses server-side rendering) | ### Specification Template ```yaml # contract.yaml openapi: 3.0.0 info: title: NATSBridge API version: 1.0.0 description: Technical specification with requirements and solution design traceability paths: /api/v1/endpoint: post: requestBody: content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Request' responses: '200': description: Success content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Response' x-requirement-id: FR-001 # Reference to Requirements document (WHAT) x-solution-design-ref: SD-001.1 # Reference to Solution Design decision (HOW/WHY) x-spec-id: SP-001 # Specification item ID for downstream traceability components: schemas: Request: type: object properties: data: type: string x-requirement-id: FR-002 # Reference to Requirements document (WHAT) x-solution-design-ref: SD-001.2 # Reference to Solution Design decision (HOW/WHY) x-spec-id: SP-002 # Specification item ID for downstream traceability Response: type: object properties: status: type: string x-requirement-id: FR-003 # Reference to Requirements document (WHAT) x-solution-design-ref: SD-001.1 # Reference to Solution Design decision (HOW/WHY) x-spec-id: SP-003 # Specification item ID for downstream traceability ``` ### UI Specification Template ```markdown # UI Specification: Component Name ## Component Overview **Name**: [Component Name] **Status**: [Draft/Approved/Deprecated] **Version**: 1.0.0 **UI-XXX**: [Unique UI spec ID assigned to this component] ## Requirements Traceability | UI Element | UI Spec Ref | Requirement ID | Solution Design Ref | Description | |------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------|-------------| | Login form | UI-001 | FR-001 | SD-001.1 | Username/password authentication | | Sidebar menu | UI-002 | FR-102 | SD-002.1 | Collapsible sidebar for navigation | | Wine table | UI-003 | FR-101 | SD-003.1 | Sortable, searchable inventory table | ## Design Tokens - **Color**: `--color-primary` - **Typography**: `--font-body` - **Spacing**: `--spacing-md` ## Component States **UI-XXX**: [UI spec ID from the Component Overview] | State | Description | Example | Requirement ID | UI Spec Ref | |-------|-------------|---------|----------------|-------------| | Default | Normal state | `