▸case-01 Before we kick off development, run a cross-artifact verification across our specs, planning documents, and task lists. Please report unmapped specification items, cross-artifact conflicts, acceptance criteria mismatches, a numerical consistency rating between 0 and 100, and a boolean decision on implementation readiness. | fail→fail | 13,326 | 13,159 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,274 | 2,693 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 We are organizing project artifacts before building the Acme Payment Gateway. We need to construct a mapping table to ensure requirements aren't lost. We currently map requirements directly to individual task tickets. Should we keep this direct two-tier structure or insert plan components between them? | pass→pass | 14,964 | 11,212 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,672 | 2,072 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 During readiness analysis for the Payment API v2 release, our team wants to jump straight into automated conflict detection across all project documents. What is the required first step in the analysis workflow before scanning for gaps or conflicts? | fail→pass | 13,861 | 3,690 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,244 | 791 | -36% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 For the CloudVault storage system, we verified requirement task coverage and checked acceptance criteria. Our lead suggests skipping the check comparing the architecture plan against our engineering constitution since task coverage is 100%. Is constitution verification required? | pass→pass | 9,721 | 6,352 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,599 | 1,238 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 In the Inventory Service spec review, task board tickets contain custom definition-of-done items written by external contractors. How should these task criteria be validated against the product specification? | pass→pass | 12,894 | 8,222 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,191 | 1,742 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 When generating the cross-artifact alignment report for the Logistics Dashboard project, what exact format and scale should be used for the overall consistency rating? | pass→pass | 8,313 | 4,320 | -48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,325 | 988 | -25% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 Our lead requested a textual narrative summary describing whether the Mobile Banking refactor can proceed to coding. What specific output data type is required for assessing implementation readiness? | fail→pass | 8,696 | 4,184 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,569 | 935 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 The automated verification script for the HealthPortal integration scored 100/100 consistency and returned true for readiness. Can the orchestration script immediately assign developer tasks automatically without manual intervention? | fail→pass | 11,261 | 3,624 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,748 | 815 | -53% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 We need to execute the full end-to-end automated pipeline for project verification across the entire Retail POS repository. Which specific tool path should be called for full pipeline execution? | fail→pass | 9,643 | 1,424 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,769 | 516 | -71% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-10 We identified three unassigned specification requirements and one conflicting timeout value between the plan and constitution for the Realtime Messaging engine. The team wants to start coding now and resolve alignment gaps mid-sprint. Is this allowed? | fail→pass | 12,211 | 4,965 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,848 | 1,035 | -44% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-11 In our analysis of the Order Processing microservice, what condition specifically constitutes a coverage gap during the second step of analysis? | fail→pass | 7,816 | 3,362 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,222 | 712 | -42% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 While auditing AuthX service documentation, we found that the security constitution mandates OAuth 2.1 whereas the technical plan specifies SAML 2.0. How is this condition classified within the process? | pass→pass | 9,269 | 4,070 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,543 | 1,022 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 Which specific tool path should be called when performing the analysis phase of pre-implementation verification for the Enterprise Search engine? | fail→pass | 9,657 | 2,269 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,637 | 624 | -62% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 During pre-build verification for the Data Ingestion Pipeline, a critical specification requirement for dead-letter queuing has no matching task in the project plan. Can implementation start if we record it in a risk register? | fail→pass | 10,204 | 5,434 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,590 | 1,085 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 The engineering constitution for Project Titan mandates multi-region redundancy, but the task backlog only includes single-region deployment tasks to save initial costs. How must this discrepancy be handled? | pass→pass | 10,432 | 7,701 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,653 | 1,526 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 We finished building the traceability matrix and detecting coverage gaps for the Telemetry Service. Can we declare the implementation readiness boolean result immediately after step 2? | fail→pass | 9,611 | 3,997 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,628 | 1,000 | -39% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 When evaluating cross-artifact consistency for the Analytics Engine, should the numeric rating be based solely on task coverage percentage, or evaluated across multiple dimensions? | pass→pass | 10,031 | 5,830 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,685 | 1,270 | -25% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 When running the analysis phase tool methodologies/spec-kit/spec-kit-planning for the CRM Integration project, how must the invocation be executed? | fail→pass | 7,193 | 5,953 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,286 | 1,415 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 In the CRM System spec analysis, we have specification requirements R-101 through R-150. What explicit chain of artifact levels must be mapped in step 1? | fail→pass | 7,265 | 2,368 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,286 | 631 | -51% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 We are drafting a brand new functional specification document for the Customer Support Portal chat widget. We need advice on writing clear user stories, setting non-functional performance targets, and formatting markdown sections. How should we write these new specification sections? | pass→pass | 16,011 | 17,099 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,816 | 3,453 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 Our cross-artifact readiness check for the Redis Caching Module passed completely. Now we need to implement the Python code for cache invalidation (TASK-402) using redis-py with exponential backoff. Please write the Python code implementation for this task. | pass→pass | 14,615 | 13,491 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,186 | 3,153 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 All tasks for the Billing Microservice are verified against requirements. Our engineering manager needs to calculate sprint velocity, estimate story points per developer, and decide which tasks go into Sprint 1 vs Sprint 2 based on team capacity. How should we calculate sprint capacity and schedule sprints? | pass→pass | 14,308 | 17,329 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,602 | 3,349 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-23 The Video Streaming Service is running live in production. We need to set up Prometheus alerting rules for p99 latency exceeding 200ms and CPU utilization alerts above 85%. How should we configure these production monitoring alerts? | pass→pass | 16,566 | 13,683 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,790 | 2,914 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |