Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Spec Kitty 3.2 Documentation Refresh

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning. Created: 2026-05-21 Feature: spec.md Mission ID: 01KS4KSZ67PMNRJ057BGT0Z8AW Mission Slug: spec-kitty-3-2-docs-01KS4KSZ

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — planning artifact decisions are recorded as deferred decisions, not pre-committed implementations
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (adopters, existing users, multi-harness operators, CLI consumers, release engineers)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders where possible — scenarios are user-facing
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No unbound [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers — exactly 3 markers, each tied to a decision_id recorded via agent decision open → defer
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous — each FR has an explicit Acceptance column
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional / Constraints) — three distinct tables
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-### (FR-001–FR-021), NFR-### (NFR-001–NFR-009), and C-### (C-001–C-009)
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value (Planned / Active)
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds (counts, presence checks, freshness check, citation requirements)
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable (under 30 minutes, every (tool × OS) cell verified, zero unclassified visible paths, etc.)
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (user-facing outcomes, no framework calls)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined (9 scenarios covering version separation, CLI parity, help truthfulness, Divio coverage, harness reachability, install lifecycle, leakage, plan-only gate, operating-rule compliance)
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (hidden vs visible asymmetry, SaaS-gated commands, renamed commands, harness inventory drift, 3.1 ambiguity)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded — explicit Out of Scope section
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified — Assumptions section captures non-deferred open questions and stack policy

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria (Acceptance column on every FR row)
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (5 primary actors, happy-path scenario, 9 acceptance scenarios)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria (7 user-facing success criteria mapped to FRs)
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification (CLI generator vs hand-maintained left as deferred decision; site filter mechanism left as FR-003 decision artifact)

Notes

  • Items marked incomplete require spec updates before /spec-kitty.plan.
  • The three [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers are intentional and deferred via Decision Moments:
  • 01KS4KTGTN4DBE60JFWKEA2FJB — 3.1 as supported version vs migration notes
  • 01KS4KTM69EG2KVX5MQ54FQ939 — CLI reference generation mode
  • 01KS4KTS4V300M9MMTS1AJEGXY — harness support tiers
  • The remaining two open questions from start-here.md (SaaS doc scope, exact release label) are resolved in Assumptions with documented defaults and may be revised during /spec-kitty.plan.
  • Bulk-edit guardrail invocation (spec-kitty-bulk-edit-classification skill) is deferred to the plan phase per C-008.