Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Docs SEO Metadata Audit and Enforcement

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-05 Mission: docs-seo-metadata-enforcement-01KZ9PJ2 Spec: 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

Mission Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • ✅ Mission meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Validation notes

Iteration 1 findings and fixes applied before this checklist was marked complete:

1. Implementation-detail leakage — the first draft named the specific generator, script filenames, and HTML tag syntax throughout the requirement tables. Rewritten to name behaviours ("the SEO post-processing step must emit a description tag") rather than files. Concrete file paths are confined to the Context section, where they serve as audit evidence for a claim about the current state, not as instructions for the target state.

2. Unmeasurable success criteria — an earlier SC read "improve click-through rate". This mission has no Search Console access (recorded in Assumptions), so that is unverifiable here. Replaced with SC-002, phrased on result quality and click depth, both of which are directly verifiable against the built site.

3. Gate demonstrability was missing — the original requirement set said the gate must cover the site but never said it must be provably able to fail. Since the entire defect being fixed is a gate that passed while covering 2.4% of pages, NFR-006 was added to require a red-first boundary proof, matching the precedent already set by the repository's existing description-length gate.

4. Silent-exclusion risk — FR-013 was added after noticing that "exclude generated and archive pages" could reproduce the exact failure mode under audit if the exclusion is an unstated glob gap rather than an enumerated decision.

Deferred decision resolved during discovery, not left open: whether the 147 architecture-decision descriptions belong in this mission or a follow-up. The operator chose to keep them in scope (decision 01KZ9PJX85AK9HNT9FQFAAZHFN). This is the largest single effort item in the mission and should be sized accordingly at plan time.

Note for planning: FR-004 is authoring work at a volume (147 pages) that is qualitatively different from the other requirements, which are pipeline changes. It should be its own work package, and it is a natural candidate for lane parallelism.