Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Charter Ownership Consolidation and Neutrality Hardening

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-17 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

Caveat: implementation language (Python) and canonical package path src/charter are named because the mission is an internal refactor of a Python package — those names are the subject of the work, not implementation-detail leakage. Project charter itself mandates Python 3.11+.

Users here are contributors, reviewers, and end users of spec-kitty; "business value" is downstream mission velocity + prevention of UX regressions in non-Python projects.

Acceptance scenarios and success criteria are phrased in outcome terms.

  • ✅ 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 (≤ 5s lint runtime, ≥ 90% coverage, ≤ 5% CLI startup regression, mypy --strict pass/fail)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic where possible (exceptions noted: mypy, DeprecationWarning, and pytest are named only where they are the direct subject of the requirement — they describe the artifact under lint, not the outcome delivered to the user)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (7 scenarios + 4 edge cases)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (Out of Scope section enumerates deferred work)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (contributor import discovery, PR rejection of duplicate impl, lint rejection of banned terms, allowlist-happy-path, deprecation warning for external consumers, no-Python-surprise in generic projects, CLI behavioral invariance)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the names of the artifacts the mission is reshaping

Bulk-Edit Classification Readiness (DIRECTIVE_035)

  • ✅ meta.json has change_mode: bulk_edit
  • ✅ Spec explicitly names the rename target: specify_cli.charter. → charter. for import paths (see Primary Intent + FR-003 + FR-016)
  • ✅ FR-016 requires occurrence_map.yaml with all 8 standard categories approved before any cross-file rewrites
  • □ occurrence_map.yaml authored — deferred to /spec-kitty.plan phase (correct; this is the plan-phase artifact, not a spec-phase artifact)

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan.
  • The one unchecked box (occurrence map) is expected to be unchecked at spec time — it is a plan-phase artifact per the bulk-edit skill, and FR-016 captures the obligation to produce it.
  • A handful of requirements reference the names of language tooling (pytest, pip, junit, etc.) and of the refactor's own canonical package path (src/charter). These are not implementation leaks; they are the nouns the mission acts upon.