Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Glossary Pack Doctrine Kind

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-21 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — see Notes (infra mission)
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — user stories + success criteria are outcome-framed
  • ✅ 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 — outcome-framed (loaded/healthy, 100% parity, zero regressions)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (A vs B/C/D boundaries stated as C-002/C-003/C-004)
  • ✅ 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 — see Notes

Notes

the doctrine/charter/DRG subsystems themselves. The User Stories and Success Criteria are deliberately outcome-framed (loaded/healthy node, zero-loss migration, active-by-default, zero regressions). The FR/NFR/C tables name concrete code surfaces (e.g. _NON_AUGMENTATION_ELIGIBLE_KINDS, the three mirrored kind-lists, the glossary_pack: URN) because for this mission those surfaces ARE the load-bearing, testable acceptance criteria — not leaked product-implementation detail. This is the appropriate tiered-rigour posture for core doctrine work; the "no implementation details" items are read in that light.

  • Infrastructure mission caveat. This is a doctrine-internals mission whose "actors" are
  • All checklist items pass; spec is ready for /spec-kitty.plan.