Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Mixed-lane authorship soundness

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-28 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-###, and C-### entries
  • ✅ 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

  • The audience is maintainers/operators of Spec Kitty, so domain terms (execution lane, reconciliation gate, squash/merge strategy, spec-kitty consolidate) are the product's user-facing vocabulary, not implementation leakage. spec_kitty_events in C-001 names an external contract boundary the operator set, not an implementation choice.
  • NFR-005 names the repo's quality gates (ruff/mypy) because they are the project's binding definition of done (CLAUDE.md), not a technology choice for the feature.