Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Decompose agent/tasks.py god-module

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-06-24 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — internal-tooling exception: module/router names are part of the contract being refactored; requirements stay at the behavior/contract level
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (maintainability, defect reduction, behavior preservation)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — adapted: stakeholders here are maintainers/agents; scenarios are still outcome-framed
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — RESOLVED by Phase 0 research (NFR-004 → ≤~1200 LOC / maxCC ≤15; C-005 → golden CLI characterization tests before refactor). See research.md.
  • ✅ 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 (NFR-001/002/003; NFR-004 threshold deferred to research by design)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic — adapted for internal tooling; SC framed as outcomes (zero regressions, maxCC ≤15, defect class eliminated)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (decomposition + the 4-tail commit-routing fix; nothing else changes behavior)
  • ✅ 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 beyond the unavoidable contract surface

Notes

  • The 2 deferred [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers were resolved by Phase 0 research (NFR-004 size target; C-005 verification strategy) and the spec updated accordingly.
  • Phase 0 also surfaced a scope correction: 3 commit tails, not 4, already kind-aware, and the protected-primary behavior already refuses (not "silent skip"). FR-006/007/008 were re-grounded to router-centralization with byte-identical output (user decision: preserve exact messages). See research.md §3.
  • All checklist items now pass. Spec + research are ready for /spec-kitty.plan.