Checklists
requirements.md
Specification Quality Checklist: Implement resumes after in_review to in_progress rejection
Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-29 Mission: 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-###, C-### and SC-### entries, and match the requirement-ID grammar
- ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
- ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
- ✅ Every FR row and success criterion carries a delivery label and no-op mark
- ✅ 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
Mission Readiness
- ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
- ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
- ✅ Mission meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
- ✅ No implementation details leak into specification
Notes
status/ownership vocabulary (slot occupant, implementer of record, rework verdict), so the spec names those CLI surfaces and the canonical projection (C-001) by design. The internal module choice is recorded as a constraint, not as an FR.
- This is a CLI-contract bug fix: the user-facing surface is a CLI command and the