Reviewing Specifications for Soundness

Overview

Validate specification quality before implementation begins.

A poor spec leads to confusion, rework, and spec/code drift. A sound spec enables smooth implementation.

This skill checks: completeness, clarity, implementability, and testability.

When to Use

• After spec creation (before implementation)
• Before generating implementation plan
• When spec seems unclear or incomplete
• Periodically for important specs

Review Dimensions

1. Completeness

• All sections filled
• No TBD or placeholder text
• All requirements defined
• Success criteria specified

2. Clarity

• No ambiguous language
• Concrete, specific requirements
• Edge cases explicitly defined
• Error handling specified

3. Implementability

• Can generate implementation plan
• Dependencies identified
• Constraints realistic
• Scope manageable

4. Testability

• Success criteria measurable
• Requirements verifiable
• Acceptance criteria clear

The Process

1. Load and Read Spec

cat specs/features/[feature-name].md

Read thoroughly, take notes on issues.

2. Check Structure

Required sections (should exist):

• Purpose/Overview
• Functional Requirements
• Success Criteria
• Error Handling

Recommended sections:

• Non-Functional Requirements
• Edge Cases
• Dependencies
• Constraints
• Out of Scope

If sections missing:

• Note which ones
• Assess if truly needed for this spec
• Recommend additions

3. Review Completeness

For each section, check:

Purpose:

• Clearly states why feature exists
• Describes problem being solved
• Avoids implementation details

Functional Requirements:

• Numbered/listed clearly
• Each requirement is specific
• No "TBD" or placeholders
• All aspects covered

Success Criteria:

• Measurable outcomes defined
• Clear completion indicators
• Testable assertions

Error Handling:

• All error cases identified
• Handling approach specified
• Error messages/codes defined

Edge Cases:

• Boundary conditions listed
• Expected behavior specified
• Not marked as "TBD"

4. Check for Ambiguities

Red flag words/phrases:

• "should" (vs "must")
• "might", "could", "probably"
• "fast", "slow" (without metrics)
• "user-friendly" (vague)
• "handle appropriately" (non-specific)
• "etc." (incomplete list)
• "similar to..." (unclear)

For each ambiguity:

• Identify the vague requirement
• Note what's unclear
• Suggest specific alternative

5. Validate Implementability

Ask:

• Can I generate an implementation plan from this?
• Are file locations/components identifiable?
• Are dependencies clear?
• Is scope reasonable?

Check for:

• Unknown dependencies
• Unrealistic constraints
• Scope too large
• Conflicting requirements

6. Assess Testability

For each requirement:

• How will this be tested?
• Is the outcome verifiable?
• Can success be measured?

For success criteria:

• Are they specific enough to test?
• Can they be automated?
• Are they objective (not subjective)?

7. Check Against Constitution

If constitution exists:

cat specs/constitution.md

Validate:

• Does spec follow project principles?
• Are patterns consistent?
• Does error handling match standards?
• Are architectural decisions aligned?

Note any violations with reasoning.

8. Generate Review Report

Report structure:

# Spec Review: [Feature Name]

**Spec:** specs/features/[feature].md
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** Claude (sdd:reviewing-spec)

## Overall Assessment

**Status:** ✅ SOUND / ⚠️ NEEDS WORK / ❌ MAJOR ISSUES

**Summary:** [1-2 sentence overall assessment]

## Completeness: [Score/5]

### Structure
- [✓/✗] All required sections present
- [✓/✗] Recommended sections included
- [✓/✗] No placeholder text

### Coverage
- [✓/✗] All functional requirements defined
- [✓/✗] Error cases identified
- [✓/✗] Edge cases covered
- [✓/✗] Success criteria specified

**Issues:**
- [List any completeness issues]

## Clarity: [Score/5]

### Language Quality
- [✓/✗] No ambiguous language
- [✓/✗] Requirements are specific
- [✓/✗] No vague terms

**Ambiguities Found:**
1. [Quote ambiguous text]
   - Issue: [What's unclear]
   - Suggestion: [Specific alternative]

## Implementability: [Score/5]

### Plan Generation
- [✓/✗] Can generate implementation plan
- [✓/✗] Dependencies identified
- [✓/✗] Constraints realistic
- [✓/✗] Scope manageable

**Issues:**
- [List any implementability issues]

## Testability: [Score/5]

### Verification
- [✓/✗] Success criteria measurable
- [✓/✗] Requirements verifiable
- [✓/✗] Acceptance criteria clear

**Issues:**
- [List any testability issues]

## Constitution Alignment

[If constitution exists]

- [✓/✗] Follows project principles
- [✓/✗] Patterns consistent
- [✓/✗] Error handling aligned

**Violations:**
- [List any violations]

## Recommendations

### Critical (Must Fix Before Implementation)
- [ ] [Critical issue 1]
- [ ] [Critical issue 2]

### Important (Should Fix)
- [ ] [Important issue 1]

### Optional (Nice to Have)
- [ ] [Optional improvement 1]

## Conclusion

[Final assessment and recommendation]

**Ready for implementation:** Yes / No / After fixes

**Next steps:**
[What should be done]

9. Make Recommendation

If sound (minor issues only):

• ✅ Ready for implementation
• Proceed with sdd:implement

If needs work (important issues):

• ⚠️ Fix issues before implementing
• Update spec, re-review

If major issues:

• ❌ Not ready for implementation
• Significant rework needed
• May need re-brainstorming

Review Checklist

Use TodoWrite to track:

• Load and read spec thoroughly
• Check structure (all sections present)
• Review completeness (no TBD, all covered)
• Identify ambiguities (vague language)
• Validate implementability (can plan from this)
• Assess testability (can verify requirements)
• Check constitution alignment (if exists)
• Generate review report
• Make recommendation (ready/needs work/major issues)

Example: Sound Spec

# Spec Review: User Profile Update API

**Spec:** specs/features/user-profile-api.md
**Status:** ✅ SOUND

## Overall Assessment

Specification is well-written, complete, and ready for implementation.
Minor suggestions for improvement but no blocking issues.

## Completeness: 5/5

✓ All required sections present
✓ All functional requirements clearly defined (6 requirements)
✓ All error cases identified (4 cases)
✓ All edge cases covered (3 cases)
✓ Success criteria specified and measurable

## Clarity: 4.5/5

✓ Requirements are specific and unambiguous
✓ Error handling clearly defined
⚠️ One minor ambiguity (see below)

**Ambiguities Found:**
1. "Response should be fast"
   - Issue: "Fast" is subjective
   - Suggestion: Specify "Response time < 200ms" or remove

## Implementability: 5/5

✓ Can generate detailed implementation plan
✓ All dependencies identified (JWT auth, database)
✓ Constraints are realistic
✓ Scope is manageable (single endpoint)

## Testability: 5/5

✓ All success criteria measurable
✓ Each requirement verifiable through tests
✓ Clear acceptance criteria

## Constitution Alignment

✓ Follows RESTful conventions (from constitution)
✓ Error handling matches project patterns
✓ Auth requirements aligned with standards

## Recommendations

### Important (Should Fix)
- [ ] Clarify "fast" response requirement (specify < 200ms or remove)

### Optional
- [ ] Consider adding rate limiting requirement
- [ ] Specify audit logging if required by project

## Conclusion

Excellent spec, ready for implementation after minor clarification on
performance requirement.

**Ready for implementation:** Yes (after performance clarification)

**Next steps:** Clarify "fast" requirement, then proceed to sdd:implement

Example: Needs Work

# Spec Review: Real-time Notifications

**Spec:** specs/features/real-time-notifications.md
**Status:** ⚠️ NEEDS WORK

## Overall Assessment

Specification has good foundation but several important gaps that will
cause confusion during implementation.

## Completeness: 3/5

✓ Purpose clearly stated
✗ Non-functional requirements missing
✗ Error handling incomplete
⚠️ Edge cases partially defined

**Issues:**
- No specification of real-time latency requirements
- Database storage requirements unclear
- Error recovery not defined
- Scalability requirements missing

## Clarity: 3/5

**Ambiguities Found:**
1. "Notifications should appear in real-time"
   - Issue: "Real-time" undefined (< 100ms? < 1s? < 5s?)
   - Suggestion: Specify exact latency requirement

2. "Handle notification delivery failures appropriately"
   - Issue: "Appropriately" is non-specific
   - Suggestion: Define retry logic, fallback, user notification

3. "Support many users"
   - Issue: "Many" is vague
   - Suggestion: Specify target (100? 1000? 10000?)

## Implementability: 2/5

✗ Cannot generate complete implementation plan
✗ Technology stack not specified (WebSocket? SSE? Polling?)
✗ Storage mechanism unclear

**Issues:**
- Is this WebSocket or polling? Spec doesn't say
- Where are notifications stored? For how long?
- What happens when user offline?
- No mention of infrastructure requirements

## Testability: 3/5

⚠️ Some criteria measurable, others vague

**Issues:**
- "Users receive notifications quickly" - not measurable
- "System handles failures" - no specific test criteria

## Recommendations

### Critical (Must Fix Before Implementation)
- [ ] Define exact real-time latency requirement (< Xms)
- [ ] Specify technology (WebSocket vs polling vs SSE)
- [ ] Define notification storage (where, how long)
- [ ] Specify error handling and retry logic
- [ ] Define scalability target (number of users)

### Important (Should Fix)
- [ ] Add detailed error cases
- [ ] Specify offline handling
- [ ] Define notification expiration
- [ ] Add infrastructure requirements

## Conclusion

Spec has good intent but lacks critical technical details needed for
implementation. Requires significant expansion before coding can begin.

**Ready for implementation:** No

**Next steps:**
1. Address all critical issues
2. Re-review spec
3. Then proceed to implementation

Quality Standards

A sound spec has:

• All sections complete
• No ambiguous language
• Specific, measurable requirements
• Identified dependencies
• Realistic constraints
• Clear error handling
• Defined edge cases
• Testable success criteria

A poor spec has:

• Missing sections
• Vague language
• Unmeasurable requirements
• Unknown dependencies
• Unrealistic constraints
• Unclear error handling
• Ignored edge cases
• Subjective criteria

Remember

Reviewing specs saves time in implementation.

• 1 hour reviewing spec saves 10 hours debugging
• Ambiguities caught early prevent rework
• Complete specs enable smooth TDD
• Sound specs reduce spec/code drift

Be thorough but not pedantic:

• Flag real issues, not nitpicks
• Focus on what blocks implementation
• Suggest specific improvements
• Balance perfection with pragmatism

The goal is implementability, not perfection.