Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Enable Plan Mission Runtime Support

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-02-22 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Spec describes what artifacts to create, not how to implement them
  • Uses terminology: "command templates", "mission-runtime.yaml", "runtime schema" without prescribing exact code structure
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • Problem: plan mission blocks at runtime
  • Value: Enable plan mission for end-to-end workflow
  • User benefit: Teams can use plan mission without hitting blockers
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • Executive summary explains the issue clearly
  • Success criteria measurable and outcome-focused
  • Assumptions documented for context
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed
  • Executive Summary: ✓
  • Problem Statement: ✓
  • Success Criteria: ✓
  • Functional Requirements: ✓
  • Architecture & Implementation: ✓
  • Testing Strategy: ✓
  • Assumptions: ✓
  • Constraints & Scope: ✓
  • Risks & Mitigations: ✓
  • Success Metrics: ✓
  • User Scenarios: ✓
  • Definition of Done: ✓

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • All requirements explicitly defined with clear acceptance criteria
  • User provided detailed requirements; no gaps identified
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • FR1: mission-runtime.yaml file must exist in specific location ✓
  • FR2: 4 specific command templates must be created ✓
  • FR3: Content templates created only if referenced ✓
  • FR4: Integration and resolver tests with specific coverage ✓
  • Each requirement has observable success condition
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • "Non-blocked status" returned from next command ✓
  • "Mission 'plan' not found" error does not occur ✓
  • "Existing tests continue to pass" (regression check) ✓
  • All 4 steps resolve successfully ✓
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • Criteria describe outcomes, not how to achieve them
  • Example: "Command resolution succeeds" (not "use specific Python function")
  • Example: "No regressions" (not "mock these specific classes")
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Scenario 1: Create and progress plan feature through 4 steps ✓
  • Scenario 2: Command template resolution for each step ✓
  • Scenario 3: Regression check for other missions ✓
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • Missing file references in templates → handled via resolver test
  • Path incompatibility (doctrine vs 2.x) → constraint documented, path restrictions applied
  • Existing test failures → regression testing defined
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • In Scope: 4 specific files, tests, 2.x branch only ✓
  • Out of Scope: doctrine migration, SaaS, telemetry, mainline ✓
  • Explicit: "no PR146 side-effects" ✓
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified
  • Dependency: Existing runtime schema must be available ✓
  • Assumption: Runtime bridge loads mission-runtime.yaml from specific location ✓
  • Assumption: Command template format matches software-dev pattern ✓

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • FR1 acceptance: File exists, schema valid, semantics correct ✓
  • FR2 acceptance: 4 templates exist, resolve successfully ✓
  • FR3 acceptance: Templates created only if referenced ✓
  • FR4 acceptance: Integration test passes, resolver tests pass, regressions zero ✓
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Scenario 1: Full feature lifecycle (create → progress through 4 steps) ✓
  • Scenario 2: Technical resolution flow (resolver finding templates) ✓
  • Scenario 3: Quality assurance (regression checks) ✓
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • SC1: Specify succeeds ✓ (covered by Scenario 1)
  • SC2: Next returns non-blocked ✓ (covered by Scenario 1)
  • SC3: Command resolution succeeds ✓ (covered by Scenario 2)
  • SC4: Regressions zero ✓ (covered by Scenario 3)
  • SC5: Scope compliance ✓ (constraints documented)
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification
  • Spec doesn't specify: Python version, library calls, specific class names
  • Spec focuses on: artifacts to create, their relationships, validation criteria
  • Architecture section describes flow without prescribing code

Overall Assessment

✅ SPECIFICATION QUALITY: APPROVED

All checklist items pass. Specification is:

  • Complete (all required sections present and detailed)
  • Unambiguous (clear acceptance criteria, no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers)
  • Testable (scenarios define how to validate each requirement)
  • Focused (scoped to plan mission runtime on 2.x, clear in/out boundaries)
  • User-centric (describes value and outcomes, not implementation)

Readiness for Next Phase: ✅ Ready for /spec-kitty.plan

The specification provides sufficient detail for a planning phase to identify work packages and technical design artifacts. No additional clarification required.