Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Phase 4 Closeout: Host-Surface Breadth and Trail Follow-On

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-23 Feature: spec.md Mission ID: 01KPWA5X6617T5TVX4C7S6TMYB

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Notes: The spec references specific Python modules (e.g. propagator.py, executor.py) and file paths because they are the subject of the follow-on work, not implementation choices. This is acceptable under DIRECTIVE_010 (specification fidelity) since the spec is scoped to an already-landed architecture that this mission only closes out. No new frameworks, languages, or APIs are selected by the spec.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • Notes: "Users" here are host LLMs/harnesses and human operators. User value is stated per scenario (fresh-operator parity, dashboard consistency, end-to-end correlation, mode enforcement, predictable SaaS projection).
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • Notes: The audience is Spec Kitty operators and reviewers; the governance directives require precision about host-LLM vs. Spec Kitty ownership, which is captured in Constraints (C-001..C-010). A non-technical business stakeholder can still read the Summary, Scenarios, Success Criteria, and Non-Goals without code-level detail.
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed
  • Summary, User Scenarios & Testing, Functional Requirements, Non-Functional Requirements, Constraints, Success Criteria, Key Entities, Assumptions, Dependencies, Execution Order, Tracker Hygiene, Non-Goals all present.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Notes: Every FR has a concrete verifiable target (inventory matrix, parity content, specific wording change, typed error at promotion boundary, single policy doc, resolved Tier 2 direction). NFRs carry measurable thresholds.
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints)
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries
  • FR-001..FR-014, NFR-001..NFR-007, C-001..C-010. No collisions.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • FRs: Draft. NFRs: Draft. Constraints: Locked.
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • NFR-001: P95 ≤ 5 ms, no new blocking I/O. NFR-002: P95 ≤ 200 ms at 10K files. NFR-003: 100 % surface coverage. NFR-004: ≥ 90 % line coverage. NFR-005: mypy --strict passes. NFR-006: no doc lag at merge. NFR-007: zero propagation-error log growth on clean sync-disabled invocations.
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • SC-001 (5-minute onboarding, parity across 15 surfaces). SC-002 (zero Feature on mission surfaces). SC-003 (single-lookup correlation). SC-004 (100 % rejection at promotion). SC-005 (policy resolvable from one doc). SC-006 (single documented answer). SC-007 (tracker state). SC-008 (zero errors, 100 % green Tier 1 writes with sync disabled).
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • Stated in outcomes and operator experience, not frameworks or code shape.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Six primary scenarios + five edge cases.
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • Pre-mission records, sync-disabled checkouts, unpatched host surfaces, advisory --evidence attempts, historical invocations without correlation metadata.
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • Explicit Non-Goals section enumerates everything that stays out, including #534, broad Feature rename, new CLI commands, line mutation, Phase 5/6/7 work.
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified
  • Dependencies section lists upstream landed code, host-surface references, downstream non-blockers, and external (none). Assumptions section covers host-surface set, correlation additivity, Tier 2 direction, propagator attachment points, dashboard wording locality.

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • Each FR maps to one or more SC-### or NFR-### lines; the plan phase can convert each FR to a work package with explicit tests.
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Six primary scenarios cover host-LLM invocation, dashboard operator, reconstruction, mode enforcement, SaaS projection predictability, Tier 2 resolution.
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • Traceability: FR-001/2/5/6 → SC-001; FR-003/4 → SC-002; FR-007 → SC-003; FR-008/9 → SC-004; FR-010 → SC-005; FR-011 → SC-006; FR-014 → SC-007; FR-012 + NFR-007 → SC-008.
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification
  • The spec names existing files and modules where they are the subject of change, but it does not prescribe new module layouts, class shapes, function signatures, or algorithmic choices. Those belong to /spec-kitty.plan.

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan.
  • All items pass on first pass. No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers were needed because the user's brief was exceptionally detailed and the live-baseline ground truth was verified directly from CHANGELOG.md, docs/trail-model.md, the invocation modules, the dashboard JS, and GitHub issues #496 / #701.
  • Proceed to /spec-kitty.plan.