Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Local Custom Mission Loader

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-25 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Note: Spec references existing internal modules by name as architectural anchors (e.g., _internal_runtime/discovery.py, StepContractExecutor). These are constraints on integration points already shipped and named in CLAUDE.md, not new implementation choices made by this spec. Per charter: action references in the spec, while implementation choices defer to plan.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (operator authoring + running custom missions)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (Purpose / TL;DR / Stakeholder Context section is plain prose)
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed (Purpose, User Scenarios, FR table, NFR table, Constraints, Success Criteria, Key Entities, Assumptions)

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (FR-011 has a planning-phase open question, but it is locked behavior with one bounded decision; not a clarification marker)
  • ✅ 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 (latency p95, coverage %, type-check exit code, fixture wall clock)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic at the user-outcome layer (operator can run; operator sees error within 1s)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (Primary + 2 Exception paths + Edge Cases)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (malformed YAML, shadowing, missing profile, mission-pack manifest, backward compat)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (Out of Scope section enumerates deferred tracker IDs)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (each maps to one or more lines in Success Criteria, scenarios, or edge cases)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (Author + Run; missing retrospective; ambiguous mission key)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond named integration points already shipped

Open Items (Planning Phase Resolves)

  • FR-011: Severity for shadow-of-built-in. Choices are (a) reject load, (b) warn and use the higher-precedence layer, (c) warn and reject only when override layer was unintended (e.g., SPEC_KITTY_MISSION_PATHS). Decision deferred to plan; spec locks the requirement that behavior must be deterministic and documented.

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan. None marked incomplete in this validation pass.
  • Validation iteration: 1 of max 3.
  • Charter directives applied: DIRECTIVE_003 (decision documentation captured in Assumptions + Open Items), DIRECTIVE_010 (specification fidelity will be enforced at plan / implement / mission-review phases).