docs(sdd): bootstrap react-widgets specifications by vivekv1504 · Pull Request #1468 · webex/react-widgets

vivekv1504 · 2026-07-23T15:55:46Z

COMPLETES #< INSERT LINK TO ISSUE >

This pull request addresses

< DESCRIBE THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE >

by making the following changes

< DESCRIBE YOUR CHANGES >

Change Type

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Documentation update
Tooling change
Internal code refactor

The following scenarios were tested

The testing is done with the amplify link
< ENUMERATE TESTS PERFORMED, WHETHER MANUAL OR AUTOMATED >

The GAI Coding Policy And Copyright Annotation Best Practices

Checklist before merging

I have not skipped any automated checks
All existing and new tests passed
I have updated the testing document

aws-amplify-us-east-2 · 2026-07-23T16:00:41Z

This pull request is automatically being deployed by Amplify Hosting (learn more).

Access this pull request here: https://pr-1468.d1l3lxgizk4iez.amplifyapp.com

akulakum

SDD spec-validation review

Verdict: Blocked (methodology/process gates — doc content quality is otherwise strong)

Blocking

validation.source_commit is base SHA, not PR HEAD
Missing validation.status while docs claim validation passed
No reviewable conformance / questionnaire / source-fidelity evidence for reconcile bootstrap
PR template incomplete; validated label premature

Important

Restore template metadata HTML blocks on all generated Markdown files
Sync module spec Validation status rows with manifest after re-validation

Passed checks

Comprehensive CONTRACTS.md
K1 Blocking in REVIEW_CHECKLIST.md
Honest reconcile handling of stale README/event examples
Detailed module specs with error sections where profiles require them

Please address inline comments and re-run independent spec-validator at 990470ca before merge.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:15Z

+    "runtime_fallback_tier": "different-runtime",
+    "minimum_independence": "different-runtime",
+    "blocking_severities": ["Blocking"],
+    "source_commit": "145a23ef33af4e74d8790832062d9910cd66b3de",


validation.source_commit is set to the merge-base SHA (145a23ef…), not this PR's HEAD (990470ca…). That makes the validation record non-reproducible against the docs being reviewed.

Please update the full validation block atomically after re-validation at HEAD:

source_commit: 990470cac7cee8abecac62ad385cbdc6adb85412

validation.status: pass-with-warnings or blocked (not omitted)

validator_runtime, validator_run_id, runtime_fallback_tier, etc.

Do not update only source_commit while leaving the old validator_run_id.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:17Z

+    {
+      "path": "packages/node_modules/@webex/widget-space/",
+      "coverage_status": "Partial",
+      "coverage_evidence": "Documentation assessment 94%: public exports, events, configuration, state, UI, error paths, and journey intent are covered; independent Cursor validation passed, while the last-five-PR drift gate still blocks promotion.",


All modules show 91–96% documentation scores but remain Partial. That may be correct (promotion-history / drift gates), but it is not obvious from the PR alone.

Please add a short note in the PR description explaining why high scores still map to Partial (e.g. last-five-PR drift gate, characterization gaps, promotion history).

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:17Z

+
+---
+
+Per-module coverage state lives in `.sdd/manifest.json` and is mirrored in `ai-docs/SPEC_INDEX.md`. Independent Cursor validation passed on 2026-07-23; the bootstrap specs remain `Partial` until their documented weak-evidence gaps and the promotion-history gate are satisfied.


This states "Independent Cursor validation passed on 2026-07-23," but .sdd/manifest.json has no validation.status and source_commit points at base, not HEAD.

Please align narrative with committed validation metadata, or downgrade the claim until validation at 990470ca is recorded.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:17Z

+| Coverage score | 93% assessed 2026-07-22; enhancer order, host APIs, auth, teardown, and demo boundaries covered |
+| Generated from | `module-spec` @ SDLC template library `0.2.1` |
+| generated_by / approved_by / updated_at | `codex-desktop` / repository owner / 2026-07-23 |
+| Validation status | independent Cursor validation passed on 2026-07-23 with zero Blocking findings |


Metadata says "independent Cursor validation passed … zero Blocking findings," but manifest validation metadata is incomplete and not tied to HEAD.

Please sync Validation status rows in all module specs with committed manifest after re-validation, e.g.:
pass-with-warnings, validator codex-agent-session, assessed YYYY-MM-DD (0 blocking)

Keep approved_by: pending PR approval until merge if still draft. (Same comment applies to all ai-docs/modules/*-spec.md files.)

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:17Z

+    "blocking_severities": ["Blocking"],
+    "source_commit": "145a23ef33af4e74d8790832062d9910cd66b3de",
+    "base_ref": "master",
+    "head_ref": "react-widgets-migrate-into-sdd-bootstrap"


The manifest records validator runtime/run id but has no validation.status. Meanwhile AGENTS.md and module specs say "Independent Cursor validation passed."

Either:

Record the approved verdict in manifest (pass-with-warnings / pass / blocked), or

Change doc wording to "validation pending" until Session B metadata is committed at HEAD.

Same issue fixed in webex/components#859.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:18Z

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# AGENTS.md — react-widgets


These generated docs are missing the hidden template metadata block (Template, Template-ID, Generates, library version, last updated). Footer Generated from rows are helpful but do not replace the template-library provenance block.

Please restore it across all generated Markdown files (standing docs, patterns, rules, module specs, ADRs) per template-library v0.2.1 — same fix required in components#859.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:19Z

+
+## Decision
+
+Preserve protected source documents unchanged. Reorganize supported meaning into canonical SDD sections, use current source/tests to resolve conflicts, and keep unit-level disposition in ignored source-fidelity inventories. Canonical specs do not embed full-file snapshots.


Reconcile mode requires reviewable source-fidelity evidence (A14). This ADR says inventories live only in gitignored .generated/, which reviewers cannot verify from the PR.

Please attach a redacted summary in the PR (unit counts: mapped / stale / conflicting / native-reference) so we can confirm protected READMEs/events/testplan meaning was preserved without full-file snapshots.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:19Z

+| `rw.cmd.publish` | build-release-tooling | `npm run publish:components` | CI/registry environment | nonzero on build/publish failure | protected release operation | `package.json`, `scripts/utils/publish.js` |
+| `rw.cmd.release` | build-release-tooling | `npm run release` | standard-version args | nonzero on version/changelog failure | Conventional Commits | `package.json` |
+
+## Requires — what this repo depends on


The Requires table content is strong, but column headers differ from the template (Schema / detail link, Availability assumption, Fallback on failure, Version floor).

Consider aligning column naming/shape with template-library v0.2.1 for conformance consistency.

akulakum · 2026-08-05T14:38:33Z

+
+| # | Check | When it applies | What it verifies | Severity |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| K1 | Regression guard | Any Partial/Untracked module or MODIFIED/REMOVED guarantee | A characterization/targeted baseline protects unchanged behavior with positive and negative cases. | Blocking |


K1 is correctly Blocking with positive/negative characterization semantics — matches template v0.2.1. Good improvement vs early components bootstrap drafts.

docs(sdd): bootstrap react-widgets specifications

990470c

vivekv1504 marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2026 10:37

vivekv1504 added the validated label Jul 31, 2026

akulakum requested changes Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

docs(sdd): bootstrap react-widgets specifications - #1468

docs(sdd): bootstrap react-widgets specifications#1468
vivekv1504 wants to merge 1 commit into
webex:masterfrom
vivekv1504:react-widgets-migrate-into-sdd-bootstrap

vivekv1504 commented Jul 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

aws-amplify-us-east-2 Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum left a comment

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants


		---

		Per-module coverage state lives in `.sdd/manifest.json` and is mirrored in `ai-docs/SPEC_INDEX.md`. Independent Cursor validation passed on 2026-07-23; the bootstrap specs remain `Partial` until their documented weak-evidence gaps and the promotion-history gate are satisfied.


		## Decision

		Preserve protected source documents unchanged. Reorganize supported meaning into canonical SDD sections, use current source/tests to resolve conflicts, and keep unit-level disposition in ignored source-fidelity inventories. Canonical specs do not embed full-file snapshots.

Uh oh!

Conversation

vivekv1504 commented Jul 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

COMPLETES #< INSERT LINK TO ISSUE >

This pull request addresses

by making the following changes

Change Type

The following scenarios were tested

The GAI Coding Policy And Copyright Annotation Best Practices

Checklist before merging

Uh oh!

aws-amplify-us-east-2 Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Uh oh!

akulakum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SDD spec-validation review

Blocking

Important

Passed checks

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

vivekv1504 commented Jul 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading