Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Rehome & Complete Writing-Comms Doctrine

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-05 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — path constraints are load-bearing domain facts, not tech choices
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (Context + purpose framing); doctrine mechanics confined to Constraints/Entities where load-bearing
  • ✅ 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
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (outcome-focused: validate OK, 0 orphans, incumbent preserved)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-003: doctrine, not runtime)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Context + Constraints)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (land+wire, routing, honesty, attribution)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

main at 1051c430d before authoring.

mission, so trust-boundary/credential blockers are closed by making the doctrine honest, not by building a secure runtime. The operator can redirect this at plan review.

  • Grounding facts (paths, directive numbers, enum membership) verified against current
  • The single genuine scope fork (WS2 depth) is resolved by C-003: this is a doctrine