Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Charter Delivery Finish and Context Degod

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-30 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) <!-- module/test/CLI-surface names are cited as anchors for a brownfield follow-up mission; behaviour, not implementation, drives each requirement -->
  • ✅ 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 (outcome-focused)
  • ✅ 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

  • This is a brownfield follow-up mission consolidating three tracked issues (#3082, #3064, #2532). Requirements deliberately anchor to concrete code/test surfaces (e.g. fetch_stanza.py, invocation/registry.py, test_registry_builtin_activation_parity.py, charter/context.py) because the value is expressed against an existing codebase; these are traceability anchors, not new-build implementation prescriptions.
  • #3064 carries an operator design decision (2026-07-29) — the empty-charter behaviour is a resolved product decision, so no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] is warranted there.
  • The "empty/unconfigured" boundary and the default-charter-vs-user-charter interaction are captured as Edge Cases with stated defaults rather than open clarifications.
  • All three workstreams land complete per operator scope decision — nothing is deferred-to-claim-victory.
  • Post-spec adversarial squad ran (2026-07-30) — 4 profile-loaded lenses; convergent findings re-verified against code and folded into spec.md (seam correction for #3064, fakeability guard + measurable cut-line for #2532, US1∩US3 sequencing, closed-6-verb constraint for #3082, expanded FR-009 surface). Evidence: notes/post-spec-squad-findings.md. Plan-phase carry-forwards recorded there.