Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Documentation Mission Composition Rewrite

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-26 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details bleeding into requirements (the spec names code surfaces by file path because the substrate is the user-visible contract for this internal rewrite — this is intentional and constrained by C-002 / C-009)
  • ✅ Focused on operator value: a runnable documentation mission via composition
  • ✅ Written for the spec-kitty platform engineering audience (this is an internal substrate rewrite; non-technical stakeholders are not the audience for this spec)
  • ✅ 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-001..FR-018, NFR-001..NFR-007, C-001..C-010
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (zero new findings, ≤ 2× research median, all-pass on listed suites, etc.)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable (SC-001..SC-007 each cite a concrete observable command or assertion)
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic at the operator-facing level (the substrate names are unavoidable; SC-001 / SC-006 are command-output-observable)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (Scenarios 1..6)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (six bulleted edge cases)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (Out of Scope section enumerates exclusions)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (each FR is mapped to an SC or Acceptance Scenario)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (start + advance, DRG resolution, guard failure, real-runtime walk, regression preservation, dogfood smoke)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ Open Questions are explicitly listed for /spec-kitty.plan to resolve before tasks
  • ✅ Dogfood smoke is hard-gated as a mission-review precondition (NFR-005 / SC-006 / C-008)

Notes

  • The spec authoring is a "Brief-Intake" interpretation of the user's comprehensive prompt, which already enumerated 10 numbered subscopes and the architecture boundary. Discovery questioning was therefore minimal.
  • Open Questions are intentionally deferred to /spec-kitty.plan because they require code audit (loader resolution order, DRG authoring location, guard data source, PromptStep shape, terminal step, generate predicate, validate/publish paths). All 7 Open Questions must be answered with code-grounded evidence before /spec-kitty.tasks.
  • Scope discipline: this spec deliberately mirrors the research composition rewrite spec (#504) so reviewers can diff them and see only the documentation-native deltas.