Checklists
requirements.md
Specification Quality Checklist: Coord-Shadows Follow-ups Closeout
Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-12 Feature: spec.md
Content Quality
- ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — surfaces named as touch-points/entities, not as prescribed implementation
- ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — maintainer/operator reliability outcomes
- ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — purpose + user stories are plain-language; code anchors confined to entities/matrix
- ✅ 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 (FR-001..010, NFR-001..005, C-001..006 — each appears once)
- ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value (all Open)
- ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (0 behavioral diffs, 0 new findings, diff/owned-files boundary)
- ✅ Success criteria are measurable
- ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (outcome-framed)
- ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
- ✅ Edge cases are identified
- ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (issue matrix + explicit #2566 exclusion + C-004/C-005 containment)
- ✅ 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
- Re-verified live on aligned
mainby a 4-lens brownfield squad (renata/randy/paula/priti); all five findings STILL-REPRODUCE. - F1 helper placement (new
resolve_subtasks_gate_dirvs. reusing an existing port) is deliberately left as a plan-phase decision (recorded in Assumptions), not a spec ambiguity. - #2566 exclusion is a squad verdict, not an omission.