Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: ScopeSource gate follow-up — cleanup & correctness

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-07-23 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — code-internal refactor mission; symbol/file references are the legitimate subject matter, not incidental tech leakage
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — value framed as "reviews not falsely blocked" + "clean, correct gate before half B"
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — purpose_tldr/context are stakeholder-legible; the requirement detail is necessarily engineer-facing for a refactor
  • ✅ 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 (complexity ≤15, ≥90% coverage, byte-identical golden, zero warnings)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic — as far as an internal-refactor mission allows; SC-001/SC-004 are behavior-observable outcomes
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (half B OUT; the four #2873 items IN)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (C-003 sequencing; C-002 keep-live list)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (correctness, cleanup, contract)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification — beyond the intentional file:line targeting a refactor requires

Notes

  • This is a code-internal cleanup + correctness mission; unlike a user-facing feature, its "users" are maintainers and repo owners and its outcomes are legitimately code-level (verdict identity, dead-code removal, command-authority unification). The Content-Quality "no implementation details" items are marked pass with that caveat — the file/symbol references ARE the specification's subject, not incidental leakage.
  • Carried into plan: the WP-A→WP-B→WP-C sequencing, the behavior-preservation golden captured from the pre-mission commit (NFR-001, C-006), and the shared-factory hoist as the seam WP-C reuses.