# Specification Quality Checklist: Customer Management — SP-04 Re-execution

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
**Created**: 2026-06-07
**Feature**: [specs/005-customer-management-reexec/spec.md](../spec.md)

## Content Quality

- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — the spec names specific Laravel/Spatie helpers because they are the constitutional naming surface (FormRequest, ApiResponseHelper, sanctum middleware). It avoids prescribing PHP code structure beyond the file layout mandated by the constitution.
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs — each user story is framed from the admin's perspective and tied to a measurable outcome.
- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders — the wording favors "admin", "customer", "list", "report" over low-level mechanics, while keeping the domain vocabulary accurate.
- [x] All mandatory sections completed — User Scenarios & Testing, Functional Requirements, Key Entities, Success Criteria, Assumptions, Edge Cases are all present.

## Requirement Completeness

- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — every requirement was derivable from the constitution and the re-execution guidelines.
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous — each FR names an endpoint, a condition, and an expected effect; SC items are written as pass/fail observations.
- [x] Success criteria are measurable — they reference status codes, response times, data-set sizes, or verifiable post-conditions.
- [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — they describe outcomes (response time, list ordering, permission enforcement) without naming implementation technology; references to MV, SQL, and packages are functional descriptions of what the system does, not how to implement it.
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined — six user stories cover create, list, details, update, permission seeding, and async export.
- [x] Edge cases are identified — 11 edge cases are enumerated, including the customer-with-no-contracts case and the avatar-replacement case.
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded — "no delete endpoint" is stated explicitly; role management and the MV definition itself are out of scope.
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified — the Assumptions section lists the prerequisites from SP-01/02/03 and the libraries relied on.

## Feature Readiness

- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria — every FR maps to at least one user story acceptance scenario or success criterion.
- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows — create, read (list + detail), update, export, and authorization are all covered; delete is explicitly out of scope.
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria — SC-001 through SC-011 are tied to the FR set and reflect the acceptance scenarios.
- [x] No implementation details leak into specification — the spec does not prescribe PHP class names, method bodies, or specific Laravel APIs beyond what the constitution already mandates.

## Notes

- Items marked incomplete require spec updates before `/speckit.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`.
- All quality gates pass on the first iteration; no clarifications were needed because the re-execution guidelines plus the constitution provide unambiguous direction.
- The spec is intentionally a "delta from the previous execution": it assumes the prior code is untrusted and defines the target behavior end-to-end so the planner can decide delete-and-rewrite vs targeted replacement.