Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Single-Authority Tracker-Egress Verdict

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-10 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • [~] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — intentional exception: this is an internal contract-refactor mission on a named seam, so specific symbols (_classify_channel1, EgressConsent, HOSTED_SERVICE) are named where required for testability. Kept outcome-focused elsewhere.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (operators get non-drifting refusal remedies; the system does one consent lookup, not two)
  • [~] Written for non-technical stakeholders — the purpose TLDR/context are stakeholder-legible; the requirements are necessarily developer-facing for an internal debt mission.
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (both decisions resolved: enum split; fresh feat branch)
  • ✅ 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 (0 differences, 0-byte diff, exactly-once, count)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • [~] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — SC-004 names a specific symbol because "the duplicate path is deleted" is the literal acceptance for this refactor.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (degraded resolver, permitting path, hosted byte-identity, concurrent mutation)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (out of scope: within-command verdict caching leftover)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (#3287, #3291-item2, C-004 invariant, FR-016)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (single-authority reason; one lookup)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • [~] No implementation details leak into specification — see Content Quality exception above.

Notes

  • The three [~] items are deliberate: this is a tech-debt/refactor mission whose deliverable is an internal contract change, so naming the seam and the retired symbol is required for the requirements to be testable. This does not lower the bar on any other item.
  • No unresolved clarifications; ready for /spec-kitty.plan.