Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Charter as Sole Door: Close Bypass Access Paths

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-03 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

architectural/tech-debt mission whose "WHAT" is identifying specific bypass call sites (file:line, class names). The direct precedent in this same track (doctrine-charter-split-unification-01KZ0SRB) follows the identical pattern — code-surface identification is the requirement, not an implementation leak, because the deliverable is closing named code-level access paths, not a user-facing capability.

named in docs/plans/3-2-x-open-core-delivery-plan.md.

"stakeholder" for this mission is the runtime/maintainer, and the precedent mission was written the same way.

  • [~] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — documented deviation: this is an internal
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — framed as the G1 done-bar / no-bypass stability contract
  • [~] Written for non-technical stakeholders — documented deviation, same reason as above; the
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed.

Requirement Completeness

scope; allowlist-vs-zero-exceptions) were resolved with the operator via AskUserQuestion before this spec was written, not deferred as markers.

self-mutation-provable acceptance bar.

zero-new-lint-issues, self-mutation-proof-per-gate).

dashboard loop).

bootstrap-circularity assumption risk).

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — the two genuinely open scope decisions (factory-extension
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous — each FR carries file:line anchors and a grep/equality/
  • ✅ 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 (grep-zero-match, 10% p95 latency budget,
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable.
  • [~] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — documented deviation, same reason as Content Quality.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (2+ per user story).
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (bare-project three-state semantics, bootstrap/circularity, perf-sensitive
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-003 names the five confirmed-out-of-scope issues by number and reason).
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (C-001 single-factory constraint; Edge Cases name the

Feature Readiness

Scenarios).

durability gate).

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (via their linked user story's Acceptance
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (5 user stories map 1:1 onto the four bypass categories plus the
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria.
  • [~] No implementation details leak into specification — same documented deviation as above.

Notes

architectural bypass-closure work), not an oversight — see the rationale inline above. No rewrite iteration was run against them; re-litigating "no implementation details" for this mission class would produce a vaguer, less implementable spec, which is the opposite of what the checklist exists to protect.

  • The three [~] items are a deliberate, precedent-matched deviation for this mission class (internal
  • All other items pass on the first pass — no iteration was required.