Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Review Loop Stabilization

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-06 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints)
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

  • All items pass after spec review revision (2026-04-06). Spec is ready for /spec-kitty.plan.
  • FR-003 references a specific path pattern (kitty-specs/<feature>/tasks/<WP-slug>/review-cycle-{N}.md) — this is an artifact location convention, not an implementation detail.
  • C-002 references git status --porcelain as a behavioral constraint on the classification approach, not as an implementation prescription.
  • FR-016 (backward-compatible pointer resolution) added per spec review to prevent dangling feedback:// references in pre-066 event logs.
  • WP03 (old "wire fix-mode") absorbed into WP02 per spec review — the wiring is not a standalone deliverable.
  • WP05 split into WP04 (baseline test capture, #444) and WP05 (concurrent review isolation, #440) per spec review — unrelated problems with different risk profiles.
  • Scenario 5 rewritten to match actual failure mode: concurrent review of same WP or shared project-global test DB across lanes.