Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Ownership-Boundary Overwrite Hardening

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-22 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — code sites named as sources/traces, not as required implementation; the WHAT/WHY stays at operator-outcome level
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (no silent destruction of operator-authored files)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (operator-facing outcomes; the invariant is stated plainly)
  • ✅ 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 (0/3 silent-loss; 100% control arms green; 0 adapter-only gates)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (3 per user story, with control/no-regression scenarios)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-005 names the excluded seams)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Intent Summary assumptions a–c)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (one per in-scope issue)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

  • The mission is a bug-fix consolidation of three reproduced catfooding defects (epic #4915). Discovery was minimized per explicit operator delegation to drive end-to-end; the confirmed intent and assumptions are recorded in the Intent Summary rather than elicited via interview.
  • Code-site references (init.py, research.py, write_mission_brief, asset_preservation) are traceability anchors to the reproduced defects, not a prescribed implementation — the architecture (shared overwrite primitive vs. per-site enforcement) is a /plan decision.