TirSystem/git-workflows: Publish wiki / publish-wiki (push) Skipped
TirSystem/git-workflows: Release / release (pull_request) Successful in 21s
TirSystem/git-workflows: Validate / validate (pull_request) Successful in 37s
TirSystem/git-workflows: OpenGrep / opengrep (pull_request) Successful in 4m19s
TirSystem/git-workflows: Sync GitHub mirror metadata / sync-metadata (push) Successful in 15s
TirSystem/git-workflows: Publish accepted milestones / publish (push) Successful in 42s
TirSystem/git-workflows: Validate / validate (push) Successful in 40s
TirSystem/git-workflows: OpenGrep / opengrep (push) Successful in 5m43s
4.4 KiB
4.4 KiB
RC-001 review
Metadata
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| ID | RC-001 |
| CrossReference | BC-001, QC-BC-001 |
Version History
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-06 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | AI as stand-in for S01 | Initial version | fe0f272 |
Artifact Under Review
- Instance reviewed: BC-001
- Checklist used: QC-BC-001
- Scope: full review
- Language and domain: en / it
- Language reviewer: none, the reviewer reads English and knows the IT domain
- Mode: autonomous, not independent (the reviewer is
AI as stand-in for S01)
Checklist Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ROI/Cost-Benefit analysis is quantitative, or where qualitative, is explicitly justified | Pass | Cost–Benefit says the assessment is qualitative because there is no budget and no revenue |
| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | Four risks, each with impact and mitigation |
| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | Six success criteria with targets and measures, for example python -m pytest exits with 0 |
| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | ### In Scope and ### Out of Scope are separate |
| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | Stakeholders table cites S01, S02, S03 only |
| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | Methodological and Standards Foundation names the framework, Larman and ISO/IEC 25010:2023 |
| 7 | Assumptions and constraints are explicit and clearly distinguished from one another | Pass | Assumptions and Constraints are separate lists |
| 8 | Document supports executive decision-making with a clear, unambiguous recommendation | Pass | Recommendation: Proceed, with a one-sentence rationale |
Language and Domain Results
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The Metadata table has a Language row and a Domain row, and neither is a placeholder |
Pass | Metadata has `Language |
| 2 | Language is a BCP 47 code and Domain is a value from the registry's domain list |
Pass | en is BCP 47; it is in the registry domain list |
| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | BC-001 prose and table cells are in English |
| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Register is IT Executive English for BC, PP and MIL, IT Professional English for SA, as the registry gives |
| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | Only standard IT terms are used (Flask, route, decorator, test); the project has no DICT and no PO-specific term needs one |
| 6 | Metadata keys, section headings, IDs and statuses are in English | Pass | Metadata keys, headings, IDs and statuses are English |
| 7 | No translated twin (<name>.<language>.md) exists beside the document |
Pass | No .en.md/.da.md twin exists beside the document |
| 8 | A change of language or domain since the previous accepted version has a Version History row and was reviewed again | Pass | No change of language or domain; this is the first version |
| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | AI as stand-in for S01 read the terms as correct IT usage; S01 accepted the plan in chat on 2026-11-06. Stand-in decision, not independent; open to challenge in the run summary |
| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | Abbreviations (BC, SA, MIL, GIF, HTML, PR) are spelled out or are standard IT abbreviations |
Overall Verdict
Go — All Mandatory and Optional criteria pass for BC-001 and QC-LANG-001; no blocking finding.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|
| None | S01 | 2026-11-06 |