Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Cross-OS Primitive Unification

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-18 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — see note: this is a code-surface unification mission; naming the specific modules/primitives being consolidated is the subject matter, not incidental implementation leakage
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (recurrence prevention for Windows users; single-owner maintainability)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (Context + purpose framing; the "users" are contributors/maintainers/Windows operators)
  • ✅ 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 (fork-count deltas, diff-cover ≥90%, complexity ≤15, gate non-vacuity, zero new deps)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable (fork-count deltas 3→1, 4→1, 3-families→1; parity test passes; gate non-vacuous)
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic — note: counts of "primitives"/"copies"/"definitions" are the technology-agnostic measurable framing; module names appear only as the objects being counted, unavoidable for a unification mission
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (3 user stories, Given/When/Then)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (canonical record read; async/sync; re-entrancy/test-doubles; cross-process parity; frozen migration)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (Non-Goals NG-01/NG-02; deferral seam A-01)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Assumptions A-01..A-03; Constraints C-001..C-006)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (mapped to the 3 user stories + success criteria)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (Windows lock-safety P1, safe-delete P1, OS-seam P2)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria (SC-001..SC-005)
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the named surfaces that ARE the mission's subject

Notes

landing squad. Unlike a product feature, its subject is specific code surfaces, so module/primitive names in requirements are the objects being unified, not premature implementation choices. Architecture (the C1/C2 home decisions, the lock API shape, the gate mechanics) is deliberately left to /spec-kitty.plan; the spec fixes what must be true, not how the module is written.

  • This is a tech-debt / by-construction unification mission spun out of the #4703
  • All checklist items pass on iteration 1. Ready for /spec-kitty.plan.