Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Execution-State Canonical Domain Surface

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-06-07 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • [~] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — Accepted deviation: this is an internal architecture/refactor mission whose requirements are inherently about code structure (module boundaries, import paths, resolver call sites). Audience is engineers, not business stakeholders. Code references are intentional and necessary.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — framed as location-independent, reliable mission execution and reduced regression surface
  • [~] Written for non-technical stakeholders — purpose TL;DR + purpose_context are stakeholder-legible; requirement tables are engineer-facing by necessity
  • ✅ 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-### (FR-001..FR-027), NFR-### (NFR-001..NFR-006), and C-### (C-001..C-009)
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • [~] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — Accepted deviation (same rationale): criteria reference code structure because that is the deliverable
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (Scenarios A–F)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (fail-closed mainline write, snapshot reconstruction, legacy missions)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-008 out-of-scope list)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Assumptions section; depends on predecessor 01KT6HVH)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (mapped to Success Criteria 1–8)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (full sequence, all three execution modes)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • [~] No implementation details leak into specification — intentional for an architecture mission (see Content Quality note)

Notes

  • The three [~] "technology-agnostic / no implementation detail" items are accepted deviations, not failures: this is an internal domain-boundary refactoring mission. Its requirements are necessarily expressed in terms of modules, import paths, and resolver call sites. The stakeholder-facing value (reliable, location-independent execution; fewer regressions) is captured in the Purpose and Success Criteria.
  • Bulk-edit guardrail engaged (change_mode: bulk_edit, C-007): an occurrence_map.yaml will be produced during plan for the status import-path + path-builder migrations.
  • Canonical module name is left to the design ADR (FR-006); requirements are written to the ADR outcome rather than hardcoding mission_runtime/.
  • Ready for /spec-kitty.plan.