Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Dossier Parity Reconciler

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-20 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — the canonical hash algorithm is stated as a domain-level constraint, not code
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (provable materialization)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders where possible (infra mission; outcomes phrased as proof/parity)
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (hash definition decided, not deferred)
  • ✅ 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
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (AS-1..AS-5)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (explicit Out of Scope + C-002)
  • ✅ 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

  • Hash definition is a bold, made decision (align CLI to server's path\tcontent_hash + sha256: structure over the normalized WP static projection). Documented in Assumptions A-001..A-004; Stijn's #2686/#2684 conform to it. Not treated as an open question per operator direction.
  • Validation passed on first iteration; no failing items.