Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Quality and DevEx Hardening 3.2

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-05-14 Feature: spec.md Mission ID: 01KRJGKH4DJCSF277K9QV3WBE7

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — the spec acknowledges technical scope (Sonar, mypy, CI workflow) because the mission is infrastructure-hygiene work; module paths appear only as boundary markers, not as design instruction.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — every requirement traces to a maintainer or contributor scenario (S-01 release readiness, S-02 contributor merge, S-03 upgrade UX, S-04 CI symlink coverage).
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders where possible — Problem Statement, Motivation, Success Criteria are stakeholder-readable; technical detail is confined to the FR table, Key Entities, and binding doctrine references.
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed — Problem Statement, Motivation, Scope, Mission Philosophy, Doctrine Contract, User Scenarios, FRs, NFRs, Constraints, Success Criteria, Key Entities, Open Questions, Acceptance, Pre-Mission Research all present.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — the three open questions are listed in their own section with recommended defaults; they are decisions-to-be-made-in-WPs, not specification gaps.
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous — every FR carries an observable acceptance condition; every NFR carries a measurable threshold.
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated — FR-### / NFR-### / C-### tables are independent.
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries — verified by visual scan; FR-001..012, NFR-001..006, C-001..008.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value — every row is "Active".
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds — NFR-001 (smoke completes / no manual repair), NFR-002 (reviewer checklist applied), NFR-003 (git log ordering verified), NFR-004 (≤ 100 ms steady-state), NFR-005 (ADR enumeration), NFR-006 (review-template extension).
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable — seven outcome-level criteria; one explicitly outcome-level (mission ready for tag-cut), others map to observable user / CI outputs.
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic where allowed — three (release-tag, contributor merge experience, upgrade notice UX, CI symlink coverage, future-agent discoverability) are user-outcome statements; the Sonar-gate-OK criterion necessarily references the tool but is the goal of the ticket.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined — S-01 through S-04 cover the four primary actors and outcomes; edge cases are enumerated.
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified — Sonar threshold negotiation, _auth_doctor.render_report gate interaction, PyPI rate-limit, auto-union semantic miss.
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded — "In Scope" enumerates nine workstream items; "Out of Scope" enumerates seven exclusions with rationale.
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified — C-001 names the parallel mission; C-002 names in-flight PRs; C-007 names the auto-rebase ADR dependency; C-006 names the mypy scope decision dependency.

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria — embedded in each FR's description (e.g. "exits 0", "status: OK", "100 ms budget").
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows — S-01 (release owner), S-02 (contributor merge), S-03 (contributor upgrade UX), S-04 (CI symlink).
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria — the Acceptance section enumerates the demonstrable bar.
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond what the mission's nature requires — module paths and tool names appear as boundary markers (where the work happens); the spec does not prescribe how to implement (no class diagrams, no API specs, no library choice).

Notes

  • This mission is infrastructure-hygiene by nature. The spec necessarily refers to Sonar, mypy, pytest, and specific Python module paths because those are the artifacts the user-facing outcomes (release stability, behavior preservation, contributor ergonomics) flow through. The spec keeps implementation-prescription out — for example, FR-006 names auto-rebase as a behavior outcome but defers the classifier rules to an ADR, not to the spec.
  • The mission's pre-mission doctrine commits (380db5c2e, 0878f798d) are referenced as binding contract input. Their existence on the target branch is what makes the doctrine-citation requirements (FR-010, FR-011, FR-012) executable.
  • The Open Questions section captures decisions that are deliberately deferred to WP prompts (mypy scope) or to a pre-implementation ADR (auto-rebase policy). They are not spec-quality gaps.