Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Frozen-baseline toll reduction

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-18 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

  • Audience caveat (Content Quality): this is internal developer-experience tooling, so the "consumer" is a Spec Kitty maintainer, and the spec's stakeholder framing targets that audience. Gate and baseline names (test_no_dead_symbols, _baselines.yaml, the fast marker) are domain vocabulary, not tech-stack/implementation leakage — they are the objects the mission acts on, and the requirements stay at the WHAT/WHY level (behavior of the gate) rather than prescribing HOW to implement the fix.
  • One deliberately deferred design decision (C-002): the concrete warning-not-hard-fail mechanism for FR-003/FR-004 is left to the plan phase with architect-alphonso input. The spec fixes the required behavior (no hard-fail on legitimate additive growth; growth still surfaced for review), so this is not a [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] scope gap — it is a HOW decision correctly owned by plan.
  • All items pass on the first validation iteration. Ready for /spec-kitty.plan.