Files

T

yeuimu 6c61a4e871 feat(deploy): production deployment setup and fixes

- Debian-based api image (bookworm-slim), docker/debian mirrors, prisma
  binaryTargets for openssl 3.0
- nginx: admin SPA under /admin, TLS via acme.sh (ZeroSSL) + auto-renewal
  cron, http->https redirect
- prisma: add origin_goods.delisted migration, sync missing schema
  (good_image/tag_font_color/good_tags), fix users.createdAt Timestamptz
- api: CORS wildcard reflection, helmet CORP cross-origin, price
  backfill in persistProductDetail, categoryIcon ancestor fallback,
  mediaByColor per-color gallery in public goods detail
- admin: /admin base path (vite + router)
- import-data.mjs: udt_name casting, serial sequence advance fix

2026-08-26 14:23:09 +08:00

1.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when dispatching a spec document reviewer subagent.

Purpose: Verify the spec is complete, consistent, and ready for implementation planning.

Dispatch after: Spec document is written to docs/superpowers/specs/

Task tool (general-purpose):
  description: "Review spec document"
  prompt: |
    You are a spec document reviewer. Verify this spec is complete and ready for planning.

    **Spec to review:** [SPEC_FILE_PATH]

    ## What to Check

    | Category | What to Look For |
    |----------|------------------|
    | Completeness | TODOs, placeholders, "TBD", incomplete sections |
    | Consistency | Internal contradictions, conflicting requirements |
    | Clarity | Requirements ambiguous enough to cause someone to build the wrong thing |
    | Scope | Focused enough for a single plan — not covering multiple independent subsystems |
    | YAGNI | Unrequested features, over-engineering |

    ## Calibration

    **Only flag issues that would cause real problems during implementation planning.**
    A missing section, a contradiction, or a requirement so ambiguous it could be
    interpreted two different ways — those are issues. Minor wording improvements,
    stylistic preferences, and "sections less detailed than others" are not.

    Approve unless there are serious gaps that would lead to a flawed plan.

    ## Output Format

    ## Spec Review

    **Status:** Approved | Issues Found

    **Issues (if any):**
    - [Section X]: [specific issue] - [why it matters for planning]

    **Recommendations (advisory, do not block approval):**
    - [suggestions for improvement]

Reviewer returns: Status, Issues (if any), Recommendations

1.8 KiB Raw Blame History

Spec Document Reviewer Prompt Template

1.8 KiB

Raw Blame History