Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Doctrine Consumer-Surface Contract & Missions Extraction

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-04 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

#3182, #3091, #3039, #3036) established across prior research; no [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers were needed.

titles name concrete files/modules (__all__, test_no_dead_doctrine_paths.py, src/kernel/paths.py). This is a maintainer-facing infrastructure mission — the "user" is the maintainer/contributor, and the named files ARE the user-facing surface being changed (an import path, a test gate, an error message), not an implementation-detail leak from a product feature. Reviewed and accepted as appropriate for this mission's nature rather than reworded to obscure it.

scope-boundary question, not an assumption.

reviewer-renata)**: found and an earlier revision of this spec fixed 3 BLOCKER + 8 MAJOR findings — a wrong path-count figure (was ~30, is ~46, both now moot post-split), an incomplete kernel-primitive framing citing the wrong enforcement tests, a mischaracterized gate-scope split, an FR (now FR-002) that as originally worded reproduced a remedy issue #3036's own tracker comment explicitly rejected (three lenses converged on this independently), and several fakeable Success Criteria now tightened.

missions/ relocation is more involved than scoped and was already deferred once before (relocate-builtin-doctrine-packs-01KYT87F). The operator elected to split the mission: this mission now scopes ONLY the relocation (former US2/US3), the two gate preconditions, and the two bundled fixes (former US4/US5). The public-API contract (former US1, issue #3179) is carved out to a separate follow-on mission — see "Split decision" section in spec.md. All FR/NFR/SC IDs were renumbered accordingly; this is a deliberate, recorded rescoping, not drift.

  • Every requirement traces to a specific, already-triaged GitHub issue (#3179, #3183,
  • One deliberate content-quality tension, noted rather than hidden: several FR/NFR
  • Scope boundary (C-001/C-002) was an explicit, confirmed user decision after a
  • **2026-08-04 post-spec squad (architect-alphonso, debugger-debbie, planner-priti,
  • 2026-08-04 operator scope-split decision: the squad separately flagged that the