Checklists
requirements.md
Specification Quality Checklist: Runtime Recovery And Audit Safety
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. Specification is ready for
/spec-kitty.plan. - Initial validation 2026-04-06: 16 FR, 6 NFR, 7 C entries — all with unique IDs and non-empty status.
- Re-validated 2026-04-06 after controller brief corrections:
- Assumption 1: corrected merge state path to mission-scoped
.kittify/runtime/merge/<mission_id>/state.json - Assumption 3: corrected to reflect
acceptbecomes direct canonical command, not shim-dispatched - FR-003: corrected from "half-written entries" to "duplicate event_id guarding" (JSONL is line-atomic)
- WP04: annotated as potential split candidate during planning (audit scope vs. occurrence classification)
- Added suggested execution order (WP05 first, WP03+WP01 parallel, WP02, WP04 last)
- Added duplicate-event risk to risk table
- 6 user scenarios cover all 5 WP areas plus the cross-cutting progress dashboard case.
- No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers present; all scope decisions were resolved in the mission brief.