Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Decide the fate of out-of-matrix test directories

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)
  • ✅ 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

the spec names the canonical artefacts it decides over (the registry, the guard, the timings file) as domain entities/constraints, not as prescribed implementation. Success criteria stay outcome-focused (snapshot elimination, guard-green, evidence-backed, no-longer-silent coverage).

nightly marker split authored in-mission when a promoted tree is too slow for per-PR.

  • This mission is inherently CI-infrastructure work, so "no implementation details" is applied relatively:
  • Scope confirmed in discovery: BOTH population (a) ~59 secondary trees and population (b) ~68 no-lane dirs;
  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan. None are incomplete.