Checklists
requirements.md
Specification Quality Checklist: Landing-Pass Campsite Follow-ups
Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-15 Feature: spec.md
Content Quality
- ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — surfaces named as domain concepts; the how lives in the plan/research note
- ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (contributor + CI stop losing time to avoidable red main)
- ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (purpose + scenarios readable without code)
- ✅ 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 (dev-tooling context noted; framed as observable green/red + zero-error outcomes)
- ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (A–D)
- ✅ Edge cases are identified (parallel-run race; stale command; legacy sentinel)
- ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (explicit in/out lists + traceability table)
- ✅ 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
- Direction A (#2671) is operator-resolved and recorded as C-008; not deferred.
- One assumption (Lane sentinel promotion, FR-010) is flagged for plan-time confirmation.