Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Slice F — Multi-Context Extensibility + Strategic Remediations

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-05-18 Feature: spec.md Validation iteration: 1 Validator: orchestrator

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • Spec describes WHAT (org-tier DRG, CharterScope, workflow YAML, __all__ walk, ratchet baseline file) and WHY; HOW is deferred to /spec-kitty.plan. The few unavoidable concrete references (pyproject.toml, tests/architectural/, src/charter/) are unavoidable because the spec describes the architectural model the gates encode.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • Every section ties to operator-visible behaviour (organisation-tier adoption, monorepo team workflow, composable sequences) or to the architectural quality protections that prevent operator-impacting failures (HIGH-1 visibility, HIGH-2 ratchet erosion).
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • The TLDR + Overview + User Scenarios sections are stakeholder-readable. The FR/NFR/C tables and Verbatim References are auditor-readable; not for non-technical stakeholders by design (these are the binding artefacts).
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed
  • Overview, User Scenarios, Domain Language, FRs, NFRs, Constraints, Success Criteria, Assumptions, Key Entities, Open Questions, Acceptance Criteria, Verbatim References all present.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • All decisions confirmed via HiC adjudication (2026-05-18) or deferred to plan-time as Open Questions (§"Open Questions") which the planner re-surfaces. No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION:] markers in the FR/NFR/C body.
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Each FR names a specific deliverable (a file path, a function name, a behavior under reproducible conditions). Each NFR has a measurable threshold.
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints)
  • Three distinct tables.
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries
  • FR-001..015 (Slice F core), FR-100..103 (DRIFT-1), FR-110..113 (burn-down), FR-120..122 (symbol-level), FR-130..132 (visibility), FR-140..141 (round-trip), FR-200..202 (descoped ADR+ticket), FR-300..303 (closing). NFR-001..007. C-001..010. All unique.
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • All 38 FRs, 7 NFRs, 10 Cs marked Approved or have source citation.
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • NFR-001: 23/23 tests pass. NFR-002: ≤ 1.2× baseline mean, hard cap 8 s. NFR-003: 9/9 pass. NFR-004: validator exit 0. NFR-005: pytest exit 0. NFR-006: explicit "subprocess.run, not in-process capture". NFR-007: analyze report exit verdict.
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • SC-001 through SC-007 all have wall-clock or pass/fail or document-presence measurement.
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • SC-001..007 phrased in operator-experience terms ("can configure ... and see ... in under 2 seconds"; "auditor can read ... and understand ... in under 10 minutes").
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • 6 user scenarios (one per Slice F axis, plus DRIFT-1, catalog-miss, ratchet) cover primary, exception, and rule paths.
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • Org-pack missing local_path; org-pack layer-violation; monorepo config conflict; unknown workflow_id; alias ImportError regression; subprocess catalog-miss capture; CI growth detection.
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • Explicitly descoped section names HIGH-3, HIGH-4, MED-1, most of MED-4 with disposition.
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified
  • Assumptions section names 6 assumptions; Open Questions names 6 questions (4 deferred + 2 new) for plan-time re-surfacing.

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • 18 ACs cover every FR group; AC ↔ FR mapping explicit in the Covers column.
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Scenarios 1–3 = Slice F axes (primary flows); Scenarios 4–6 = absorbed remediations' primary flows.
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • Each SC maps to either a Scenario or an AC.
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification
  • Implementation details (logging.captureWarnings, Rich-aware handler, pkgutil.iter_modules, Pydantic model_config, etc.) appear only where they encode the user-observable contract; phrased as "the CLI SHALL install ..." rather than "use library X version Y".

Validation Result

Verdict: ALL ITEMS PASS — no spec updates required.

Issues found: none.

Iteration count: 1 (no re-validation needed).

Notes

  • The spec is comparatively long (370 lines, 38 FRs) because it bundles Slice F core + 5 absorbed remediations + descoped ADR/ticket deliverables. The bundling is deliberate per HiC §5a.1 ("go full monty rather than leaving confusing paths in place"). A future planner may decide at /spec-kitty.plan time to decompose this into a 12-WP plan as outlined in the work/ scope proposal, or to split further if the FR-coverage matrix surfaces unexpected coupling.
  • Verbatim extracts from work/remediation-mission-debrief.md and work/ratchet-coherence-audit.md are embedded inline in the §"Verbatim references" section so the spec is self-contained (the work/ directory is gitignored and would not survive a fresh clone).
  • HiC adjudication record (§"Verbatim references" → "HiC adjudication record (2026-05-18)") is the binding record for C-003, C-004, C-005.