Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Review Verdict Write Integrity

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-02 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • ✅ 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 (no implementation details)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

(1) pre-spec, via AskUserQuestion (#990 initial exclusion, override-mechanism verification vs. rebuild, #2646/#2697 audit inclusion, #2275 comment); (2) post-spec, after a dialectic adversarial squad reviewed the committed spec and found the #990 exclusion and the #2646/#2697 "already fixed" assumption both needed reversing, and #1817 could be closed immediately rather than verified in-mission — each was re-escalated to the operator and resolved before this revision.

(create_rejected_review_cycle) to FR-002/FR-003 that did not actually appear in either — the squad's reviewer-renata lens caught this. This revision's User Story 3 / FR-003 acceptance scenarios do cite agent tasks status's stale-verdict scan and the coord-authority write path by name, kept as concrete, testable detail rather than abstract restatement — consistent with the pre-spec research's own code-grounded style — and this note has been re-checked against the current spec text rather than copied forward.

flag") to a bounded, regression-suite-scoped claim, per the same lens's finding.

  • No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers were needed. Two rounds of operator decisions shaped this spec:
  • Corrected from the first pass: the original note here misattributed a code citation
  • SC-002 was rewritten from an unfalsifiable universal-absence claim ("zero missions ever need the