Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Phase 3 Charter Synthesizer Pipeline

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-17 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — spec names existing subsystems (DoctrineService, DRG validator, bundle manifest) as dependency boundaries only, not as implementation prescriptions; no module-level design inside the spec.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — problem statement, user scenarios, and success criteria are operator- and downstream-agent-oriented.
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — architecture terms are introduced with enough context that a product reviewer can follow; WP scope anchor is descriptive, not prescriptive.
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed — problem, scope, scenarios, FR/NFR/C, success criteria, entities, assumptions, dependencies, WP scope anchor, validation strategy, risks, review & acceptance all present.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — all three discovery questions resolved during specify.
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous — each FR names a concrete observable behavior; each NFR has a numeric or boolean threshold.
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints) — three distinct tables in 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries — FR-001..020, NFR-001..010, C-001..012; no collisions.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value — every row has Accepted in the Status column.
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds — all ten NFRs carry explicit thresholds (percent, seconds, count, pass/fail).
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable — every SC row states a numeric threshold or 0%/100% target.
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic — SC rows describe operator-observable outcomes; "schemas" and "validators" name contracts already present in the repo rather than new technology choices.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined — eight user scenarios (US-1..US-8) cover primary flows plus invariant, ambiguity, path-guard, and idempotency edges.
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified — seven edge cases (EC-1..EC-7) cover empty interviews, invalid selections, schema failures, no-match topics, interrupted runs, shadowing attempts, duplicate slugs.
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded — Section 2 has explicit In Scope / Non-Goals lists; seven named non-goals.
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified — Section 7 (assumptions A-1..A-7) and Section 8 (dependencies, both hard and soft) are explicit.

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria — each FR maps into at least one user scenario, success criterion, or validation-strategy bullet; cross-referenceable during plan.
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows — US-1 fresh synthesis, US-2/3/4 three resynthesize paths, US-5 dangling-ref guardrail, US-6 ambiguity, US-7 path guard, US-8 idempotency.
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria — SC-001..009 are numerically bounded or boolean-verifiable.
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification — spec declines to prescribe module names, class structures, or file layouts; defers those to /spec-kitty.plan.

Notes

  • All items pass on the first validation pass. No spec updates required before /spec-kitty.plan.
  • The spec intentionally records the WP scope anchor and validation strategy at the specify level so that plan/tasks phases inherit a clear partition of concerns without re-debating scope.
  • ADR-6 is marked as a soft dependency (C-006); this must be preserved during plan so WP3.1 does not silently acquire a hard blocker.
  • WP3.3 / WP3.4 / WP3.5 deferral (C-011) is deliberate; if plan phase surfaces a concrete reason to pull one forward, that decision must be made explicitly and with justification rooted in current code.