Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: CI Main Concurrency + Fleet Fan-out Cap (Stage 1)

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-15 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

  • Infrastructure-mission caveat (honest). This is a CI-pipeline / release-authority mission. Its subject is CI workflow files and verdict scripts, so the specification necessarily names concrete surfaces (ci-router.yml, ci-fleet-verdict.yml, fleet_verdict.py) as Key Entities and observable anchors. The Functional Requirements are still framed as required behaviour/outcomes ("each landed tip gets its own terminal evaluation", "redundant triggers coalesce to one surviving evaluation") rather than as edit instructions; the concrete file:line mechanism lives in the ADR and will be finalised in /spec-kitty.plan. The "no implementation details" items are marked pass under this reading, not by pretending the mission is UI-shaped.
  • Verification tooling in Success Criteria. SC-001..SC-004 reference gh run list, actionlint, and shellcheck. For a CI-honesty mission the verification tooling is the user-observable signal (the release-authority contract is measured through CI run state), so these are the technology-agnostic-as-possible measurable outcomes; they describe what is observed on the merged main tip, not internal implementation.
  • Test-honesty constraint (C-002). The spec states plainly that the YAML concurrency/fan-out changes are not pytest-unit-testable and are provable only by workflow-lint / golden-YAML shape assertions + dedup unit tests — per ADR "Negative / accepted risk". No item claims pytest coverage of YAML.
  • All items pass on the first validation pass; no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (discovery decision 01M2K4A5HEZVC3ZR295C745W9K resolved; decision verify clean).