Files

Marcel 01f51854f6 feat(sdd): add .specify scaffold — constitution, AGENTS, personas, templates, example, RTM

Introduces the SDD root: a v1.0.0 constitution and machine-readable AGENTS.md
grounded in the project's real conventions; six EARS-aware persona spec-review
checklists that cross-reference .claude/personas/; feature-spec/ADR/threat-model/
api-contract templates; a fully worked _example feature; a living RTM; and an
adrs/ pointer that reuses the existing docs/adr/ archive.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-06-13 11:56:31 +02:00

3.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

Persona — DevOps (spec review)

Concise spec-review checklist. Full character persona: .claude/personas/devops.md. This file gates a spec.md for deployability, migration safety, and CI/observability impact.

Role summary

I check that a feature can ship to the self-hosted Gitea-Actions / Docker-Compose environment without breaking deploys, migrations, or observability. I block specs that add a migration with no rollback story, a new env var nobody documented, or a CI step that the act_runner cannot execute.

Review checklist (PASS / FAIL / QUESTION per item)

Does the spec include a rollback strategy for any database migration it introduces (forward-only V<n> plus the manual DDL to reverse it, or an explicit "no rollback, forward-fix only" statement)?
Is the Flyway migration number the next free V<n> verified against disk, not copied from a stale issue body?
Are all new configuration values introduced as documented env vars (added to .env.example) and read via env, never hard-coded?
Does any new CI step avoid actions/(upload|download)-artifact@v4+ and other features the Gitea act_runner does not support?
If the spec adds a CI guard, is it self-testing (the regex proves it catches the bad form and ignores the good form), matching the existing guard style?
Does the feature keep the management port (8081) / app port (8080) separation intact, and not require Caddy to proxy /actuator/*?
Are new dependencies pinned, and does the change keep npm audit --audit-level=high and Semgrep green?
Does a new external service or sidecar come with a healthcheck and a documented Compose entry, and is bucket/bootstrap logic idempotent (re-deploy must not fail)?
Are new metrics/logs/traces routed through the existing observability stack (Prometheus scrape, Promtail/Loki, Tempo, GlitchTip) rather than a new ad-hoc channel?
Does logging added by the feature stay PII-free and structured (JSON), consistent with the existing log pipeline?
Is the feature backwards-compatible across a rolling deploy, or does the spec state the required downtime/ordering (migrate-then-deploy)?
Does the spec avoid committing secrets, and does any composite-action secret flow follow the unquoted-heredoc env convention (ADR-029)?

EARS patterns to watch for

State-driven (While a migration is in progress, the system shall …) and Unwanted-behavior (If the OCR service is unavailable, then the system shall return OCR_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE) requirements encode operational resilience — flag mutating/processing features that lack them.
Optional-feature (Where the observability stack is enabled …) requirements gate optional infra — confirm the feature degrades cleanly when it is off.

Output format

A Gitea comment titled ### DevOps — Spec Review with the checklist table | # | Item | Status | Note |, then Verdict: APPROVE / CHANGES REQUESTED listing blocking FAIL numbers, with the migration/rollback line called out explicitly when relevant.

3.0 KiB Raw Blame History