Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Coord Write-Placement Closure & Birth-Cutover

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-25 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • [~] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — framework-internals mission; the placement port / status_phase / partition seams ARE the subject matter, so unavoidable internal references are intentional. No gratuitous stack detail beyond the domain.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (trustworthy coordination artifacts; unblocked release; self-healing corpus)
  • ✅ Written for the relevant stakeholder (framework maintainer/operator)
  • ✅ 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 (all Open)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (100% coverage, byte-identical, strict-ancestor, zero advisory paths)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • [~] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — outcome-phrased (passes / reds / fails-loud / zero-loss / no-manual-backfill); component names appear only where they are the acceptance surface of an internals mission.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-002 out-of-scope vs #1619)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Assumptions section; C-001 sequence)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (per-user-story acceptance scenarios + SC-001..005)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (unblock, born-reconciled, write-enforce, read-safe, repair)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • [~] No implementation details leak into specification — see Content Quality note; internals are the domain.

Notes

  • Two items marked [~] are the standard framework-internals caveat: this mission's acceptance surface IS internal seams (placement port, status_phase, coord/primary partition), so naming them is required for testable requirements, not a leak. All other items pass.
  • Validated by a 2-lens squad (2026-07-25): fact-check (architect-alphonso) = ACCURATE, every code anchor CONFIRMED against the tree (allowlist size corrected 20→17; fork reworded HEAD-derived). Consistency (reviewer-renata) = NEEDS-FIX → all 4 MAJOR traceability gaps folded (FR-003/FR-006/FR-009 now carry acceptance scenarios + SC-006; FR-008↔C-002 boundary pinned to the two enumerated authoring paths; C-001 intra-Part-B ordering; FR-010 self-mission exclusion; NFR-006 migration-coexistence guard).
  • No unresolved clarifications; ready for /spec-kitty.plan.