Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Single-Authority Resolution Gates

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-06-26 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — references the existing domain seams as context, not new tech-stack choices (infrastructure mission; the seams ARE the domain)
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (unblock the implement/review loop; prevent silent regression)
  • ✅ Written for the relevant stakeholders (engineers running the loop)
  • ✅ 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-### (001–008), NFR-### (001–004), C-### (001–005)
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value (Proposed)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (line-drift churn = 0; gate runtime < 30 s; allowlist non-increasing)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable (repro passes, self-test red/green, zero un-sanctioned sites)
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic where applicable (outcome-framed: loop advances, commit succeeds, build fails on bypass)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (4 scenarios + exception path)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (ambiguity → raises; cold-miss → fail-closed)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (explicit Out of Scope + MONITOR list)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (mapped to SC-001…006)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (mark_status/move_task, safe_commit, gate-catches-regression)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the domain seams the mission must touch

Notes

  • The "no implementation details" item is interpreted for an infrastructure/bug-class-closure mission: the spec names the existing resolution seams (the domain objects) but prescribes outcomes, not new tech-stack decisions. Phase-2 (DI port) implementation choices are explicitly deferred (C-004).
  • All items pass — ready for /spec-kitty.plan.