Back to Details

gjalla-spec-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Comprehensive spec-review

全面spec审查

The best, most elegant and effective software systems are ones that are well-informed, well-planned, and verifiable. The final output is a plan/spec that can act as a reference doc, covering the problem/motivation, technical approach, deltas (what properties of the system will change once implemented), and verification criteria.
Your task is to review this spec from multiple expert perspectives to ensure that this spec meets our expectations and will result in solid implementations once it's in the hands of the engineers:
最优秀、最简洁高效的软件系统是信息完备、规划周全且可验证的。 最终产出的计划/spec可作为参考文档，涵盖问题/动机、技术方案、变更点（系统实现后将改变的特性）以及验证标准。
你的任务是从多个专家视角审查这份spec，确保其符合我们的预期，并且工程师接手后能顺利实现：

Architect Review

架构审查

  • Does the design fit the existing system and respect layer boundaries?
  • Are new components placed in the correct layer and ownership hierarchy?
  • Do interactions follow established patterns (sync/async/event)?
  • Is it compatible with the broader system (i.e. cross repository integrations, future goals, etc.?)
  • Is it overengineered or introducing complication that will be difficult to understand/maintain?
  • gjalla holds the master architecture spec, referencing it is key to ensuring that we're building an elegant and effective system
  • 设计是否适配现有系统并遵循层级边界？
  • 新组件是否放置在正确的层级和归属架构中？
  • 交互是否遵循既定模式（同步/异步/事件驱动）？
  • 是否与更广泛的系统兼容（即跨仓库集成、未来目标等）？
  • 是否过度设计或引入了难以理解/维护的复杂度？
  • gjalla持有主架构spec，参考它是构建简洁高效系统的关键

Security Review

安全审查

  • Are all new endpoints authenticated and authorized?
  • Does the data model handle sensitive data correctly (PII, secrets)?
  • Are inputs validated at the surface-area boundary?
  • Are the data flows changing in a way the user should know about, like different types of data flowing to new consumers, etc.?
  • 所有新端点是否都经过身份验证和授权？
  • 数据模型是否正确处理敏感数据（PII、机密信息）？
  • 是否在接口边界处验证输入？
  • 数据流是否发生了用户应当知晓的变化，例如不同类型的数据流向新的消费者等？

Quality Review

质量审查

  • Is the testing strategy sufficient for the behavioral requirements?
  • The goal for AI-generated code is typically 100% test coverage, are positive, negative, and edge cases covered? Are appropraite and effective integration tests scope based on the end-goals?
  • Do acceptance criteria map to testable assertions?
  • 测试策略是否满足行为需求？
  • AI生成代码的目标通常是100%测试覆盖率，是否覆盖了正向、反向和边缘案例？是否根据最终目标制定了合适且有效的集成测试范围？
  • 验收标准是否对应可测试的断言？

User Advocate Review

用户视角审查

  • Does the feature solve the stated problem?
  • Are failure modes graceful from the user's perspective?
  • Is the feature discoverable and documented?
  • 该功能是否解决了既定问题？
  • 从用户角度看，故障模式是否友好？
  • 该功能是否易于发现并配有文档？

Governance Review

合规审查

  • Does the spec comply with all active project rules and conventions? (gjalla's master spec also defines rules and processes, check those)
  • Are any rule exceptions or overrides needed?
  • Does this change warrant an architecture decision record (ADR)? (not all do, mostly just things that introduce significant, new tradeoffs and need a historical record)
  • 该spec是否符合所有现行项目规则和惯例？（gjalla的主spec也定义了规则和流程，请查阅）
  • 是否需要任何规则例外或豁免？
  • 此变更是否需要架构决策记录（ADR）？（并非所有变更都需要，主要是那些引入重大新权衡且需要历史记录的变更）

Output

输出

For each lens, report: what passes, what's at risk, and concrete changes required before implementation. Separate blocking concerns from recommendations.
针对每个审查维度，报告：哪些部分符合要求，哪些存在风险，以及实施前需要做出的具体修改。区分阻塞性问题和建议性意见。