Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: CI Aggregate Source-Eligibility (main-verdict provenance)

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-16 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — infra-mission exception: the deliverable IS workflow/script surfaces; requirements are framed as testable outcomes, concrete anchors named only for traceability
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (release-authority honesty of main)
  • ✅ Written for the maintainer / release-authority stakeholder
  • ✅ 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 (Open)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (0 false-green; 0 PR-triggered main false-red over ≥25-run window; 100% named-branch coverage; byte-unchanged guard)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (framed as main-verdict outcomes, not tool internals)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (cosmetic-vs-consumed central risk; genuine red main-push; first-push PR; legacy selected-is-None)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-002 stage boundary; Assumptions; Scope B)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Stage 1 merged; #4360-B frozen; mechanism TBD in research/plan)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (P1 provenance rule; P1 tested surface; P2 non-fakeable proof)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification (beyond necessary infra anchors)

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan — none outstanding.
  • The one substantive open question (is the mislabelled run consumer-read or cosmetic?) is deliberately a research/plan determination, recorded as the central Edge Case + Assumption, not a spec-level [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] — Scope B already commits the outcome (no PR-triggered main verdict), failing closed.