Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Silent Destructive-Write Hardening

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-22 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — file:line anchors live in plan/tasks, not spec FRs
  • ✅ 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
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (three named defects, three seams, three WPs)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (no cross-WP deps; C-001..C-005)

Feature Readiness

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

Notes

  • Grounding complete (two opus lenses); all three defects confirmed live on main @ d57619a900.
  • WP02 fix depth (shared registry) recorded as decision 01M3560PHPQM617TH5MZHWRF8J.
  • C-001 explicitly excludes the path-level asset_preservation guard (category error).