Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: 3.2.0a5 Tranche 1 — Release Reset & CLI Surface Cleanup

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-27 Feature: spec.md Mission ID: 01KQ7YXHA5AMZHJT3HQ8XPTZ6B (mid8 01KQ7YXH)

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — specific module paths appear only as Key Entities / live evidence anchors, not as prescribed implementation
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — each FR is anchored to operator/contributor pain
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — Purpose section is plain-English; technical detail is segregated into evidence and entity sections
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed (Purpose, Scope, Personas, User Scenarios, Rules, FR/NFR/C tables, Key Entities, Assumptions, Success Criteria, Dependencies)

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous (each maps to a regression-test target listed in NFRs / Success Criteria)
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints in three distinct tables)
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-### (FR-001..FR-010), NFR-### (NFR-001..NFR-010), and C-### (C-001..C-008). FR-010 / NFR-010 / SC-008 added live during /spec-kitty.tasks after the status event reader bug surfaced as a finalize-tasks blocker; user approved adding to scope.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value (all "Proposed")
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (every NFR row has a quantified Threshold column)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable (each SC-### names a verifying test or observable end state)
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic at the user-outcome level (specific tool names appear only as the verification surface, not as the success metric)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (Primary scenario + three exception scenarios A/B/C)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (schema-version gate, non-git init, decision-command shape mismatch)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (explicit "In Scope" / "Out of Scope" sections)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (dedicated sections)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (each FR cross-references at least one NFR threshold and at least one SC)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (clean prerelease cut + three exception flows)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria (SC-001..SC-007 collectively close every FR)
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the Live Evidence and Key Entities sections, which are anchors for planning rather than prescribed implementation paths

Bulk-Edit Readiness

  • ✅ change_mode: bulk_edit set in meta.json
  • ✅ Bulk-edit notice section present in spec.md
  • ✅ DIRECTIVE_035 surfaced as C-008 and NFR-009
  • ✅ occurrence_map.yaml flagged as a /spec-kitty.plan deliverable

Live-Evidence Capture

  • ✅ Live #705 / #717 evidence reproduced and recorded
  • ✅ Likely root-cause hypothesis for the schema_version clobber documented at module/line granularity (without prescribing the fix shape)
  • ✅ Workaround used to unblock spec authoring (manual schema_version: 3 stamp) is recorded so the implementing agent can validate the fix against it

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan. All items pass on first iteration.
  • Two planning-time decisions are explicitly deferred to /spec-kitty.plan (FR-001 .python-version shape, FR-007 alias-vs-doc-fix branch). These are normal planning decisions, not unresolved spec ambiguities, so they are not represented as [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers.
  • The implementing agent MUST load the spec-kitty-bulk-edit-classification skill before drafting occurrence_map.yaml for FR-003.