Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Resolution & Activation Foundation

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) — intentional deviation (see Notes): this is an internal architecture/refactor mission; requirements are framed as observable behavior and invariants, but named code surfaces (get_package_asset_root, default_missions_root, pack_context, env vars) are cited because they are the acceptance targets and the audience is maintainers.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (maintainer / operator / reviewer value; the deferral-breaking rationale is explicit)
  • [~] Written for non-technical stakeholders — Overview and purpose are stakeholder-legible; requirements are necessarily technical for this mission class (deviation noted)
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain (all three open decisions resolved with the operator before authoring)
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints)
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-### (11), NFR-### (6), and C-### (8) entries
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value (all Open)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (0 diff, byte-identical, 0 upward edges, green tests)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • [~] Success criteria are technology-agnostic — SC rows name code surfaces because the outcome IS structural (single-door invariant, env regression); deviation noted, consistent with the mission class
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (authored-empty, missing tree, wildcard vs enumeration, monkeypatch seams, idempotence)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (four explicit OUT constraints C-001..C-004 with proof markers)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (mapped through User Stories 1–3 scenarios)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (resolution door, activation authority, scope fence)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • [~] No implementation details leak into specification — deliberate for an internal architecture mission (see Notes)

Notes

  • Implementation-reference deviation is intentional and bounded. Per Spec Kitty practice for internal architecture missions, the spec cites the exact code surfaces that are the acceptance targets (single-door authority, env-relocation, activation authority). The FRs remain phrased as behavior/invariants; the citations make them testable. This is the only checklist deviation and it is a deliberate, documented choice — not an unresolved gap.
  • No open clarifications; the three genuine design forks (branch strategy, env precedence, migration handling) were resolved with the operator before authoring.
  • Readiness: ready for /spec-kitty.plan.