Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: 3.2.0a6 Tranche 2 Bug Cleanup

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-04-28 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Pass: file paths in the References section are explicitly marked "informational, not normative". Functional requirements speak in product behaviors (e.g., "stamp schema_version", "JSON envelope", "review-cycle counter") rather than HTTP endpoints, classes, or framework internals.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • Pass: scenarios are framed around operator, external tooling consumer, coding agent, and reviewer.
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • Pass: each scenario states actor, trigger, success outcome, exception path. Domain Language section keeps terminology stable.
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed
  • Pass: Purpose, Stakeholders & Actors, Domain Language, User Scenarios & Testing, Functional Requirements, Non-Functional Requirements, Constraints, Key Entities, Success Criteria, Assumptions, Out of Scope, References.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • Pass: zero [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers; the two real product forks (#841, #839) are resolved via Assumptions A1 and A2 with rationale tied to tranche-level acceptance criteria.
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Pass: each FR specifies an observable behavior; each NFR carries a numeric or boolean threshold.
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints)
  • Pass: three distinct tables, no cross-mixing.
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries
  • Pass: FR-001..FR-017, NFR-001..NFR-008, C-001..C-008 — no duplicates.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • Pass: every row reads Active.
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • Pass: NFR-001 (100% across four states), NFR-002 (≥ 90% line coverage), NFR-003 (zero new mypy errors), NFR-004 (≥ 1 test per arity), NFR-005 (≥ 3 reruns), NFR-006 (≥ 95% pairing across ≥ 5 actions), NFR-007 (< 120s), NFR-008 (zero diff on existing keys).
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • Pass: SC-002 ("100% of trials"), SC-003 ("100% of cases"), SC-004 ("0 times" / "exactly 1 time"), SC-005 ("≥ 95%"), SC-006 ("100% of runs"), SC-008 ("zero new public CLI subcommands and zero new top-level runtime dependencies").
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • Pass: SCs reference operator-visible outcomes (golden path completion, JSON parsability, identity preservation, counter precision, parity rate). No frameworks named.
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Pass: seven scenarios (one per issue), each with primary and exception paths. Always-true rules section captures invariants.
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • Pass: covered via exception paths — existing metadata.yaml preservation (FR-002), partial colon strings (FR-006), orphan lifecycle records (Scenario 5 exception), non-git environment for charter generate (FR-014 exception path).
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • Pass: 7 enumerated issues + explicit Out of Scope list mirroring start-here.md.
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified
  • Pass: Assumptions A1–A6 cover the two real product forks plus environment, identity model, and dependency-set assumptions.

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • Pass: each FR is exercised by a numbered Scenario or by an NFR threshold (e.g., FR-008/FR-009 by NFR-005, FR-011/FR-012 by NFR-006, FR-013/FR-014 by SC-006).
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Pass: each of the seven defects has a primary path scenario.
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • Pass: SC-001..SC-008 map onto the FR/NFR set with no orphan FRs.
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification
  • Pass: file path references are explicitly informational; no classes, function signatures, or library APIs appear in the requirement bodies.

Notes

  • Two product forks were resolved via Assumptions A1 (charter generate auto-tracks) and A2 (public CLI synthesize on fresh project) instead of [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, because both align directly with the tranche-level acceptance criterion "fresh init → charter setup/generate/synthesize → next paths do not require manual metadata or doctrine seeding."
  • Items marked incomplete (none currently) would require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan.