| name | spec-review-and-quality |
| description | Six-axis spec review methodology — Structure, Clarity, Testability, Minimality, Consistency, Completeness, and UX Pattern Consistency. Each axis is evaluated independently, then findings are consolidated into a review report. |
| tags | [] |
Spec Review and Quality
Six-axis spec review methodology. Each axis is evaluated independently,
then findings are consolidated into a review report.
Axes
- Structure & validity —
solo-spec validate --strict passes; Purpose + Requirements sections;
SHALL/MUST in the body line; >=1 Scenario each; delta uses ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED
with the FULL requirement on MODIFY
- Clarity / KISS — unambiguous, no jargon, one concept per sentence
- Testability — every requirement has a clear pass/fail test scenario
- Minimality / YAGNI — no scope beyond what's stated, no speculative features
- Consistency / DRY — terminology is consistent with existing specs, no duplication
- Completeness — no dangling references, all edge cases addressed; for UI changes,
ui.md must exist with loading/empty/error states documented, a "Design Language Reference" section citing project design docs (or noting their absence), and UX patterns referenced from the project's design conventions
- UX Pattern Consistency — for user-facing changes:
ui.md references the project's existing UX patterns (from DESIGN.md, design skills, .solo/spec/patterns/ux-patterns.md, or codebase exploration) or explicitly justifies divergence; the abstract business flow is coherent and maps entry → steps → completion → next; visual concepts (character, density, tone) align with the project's established design language; ui.md reads as a final design handoff, not a first draft
Process
- Run
solo-spec validate "<change>" --strict
- Review each axis independently
- Fix Blocker/Required findings, re-validate
- Write REVIEW.md with verdict and findings
Severity: Blocker (invalid/untestable/contradicts invariant) > Required (fix before ship) > Nit (optional) > FYI.
