Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Relocate Built-In Doctrine to packs/built-in

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-30 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — Note: this is an internal code-structure refactor, so the spec intentionally anchors at named seams (built_in_graph_source(), built_in_dir, packs/built-in/, the pack load path). These are the domain objects of the mission, not incidental tech choices; kept at seam granularity, not code-level. HOW to implement is left to /plan.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — uniform pack authoring + zero behavioral drift
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — purpose_tldr/purpose_context + Context section are stakeholder-legible
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (open layout decision recorded under Assumptions for /plan, not as a blocker)
  • ✅ 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 (all Open)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (324/892 graph parity, 0 skipped profiles, 0 new test failures, 0 mypy/ruff issues, asset counts)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (framed as outcomes; graph node/edge counts are domain metrics, not implementation details)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (C-002 deferred scope: no code wheel / kernel / shims)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (Assumptions section)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (runtime parity, uniform authoring, packaged install)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the seam-level anchors noted above

Notes

  • All items pass. The single intentional deviation is seam-level technical naming, which is inherent to an internal refactor mission and kept above code granularity.
  • The target on-disk layout under packs/built-in/ (per-kind mirror vs manifest-bearing pack) is deferred to /plan per the confirmed option-(b) scope (unify onto the org/project load path).