Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Spec Kitty Stability & Hygiene Hardening (April 2026)

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning. Created: 2026-04-26 Feature: spec.md Mission ID: 01KQ4ARB0P4SFB0KCDMVZ6BXC8 Mission slug: stability-and-hygiene-hardening-2026-04-01KQ4ARB

Content Quality

behavior, gates, and contracts; concrete tools (pytest, mypy, etc.) only appear inside NFR thresholds, which are testable thresholds, not implementation choices.

operator workflow.

gates, not internal data structures.

Success Criteria, Key Entities, Assumptions, Out of Scope, Dependencies, DoD all present.

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — Spec talks about
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — Each scenario is grounded in an
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — Sections describe outcomes and
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed — Overview, Scenarios, FR/NFR/C tables,

Requirement Completeness

pass/fail surface (event emitted, schema validates, queue surface, etc.).

Constraints) — Three separate tables.

sequential within each table.

"Required".

a threshold column (e.g., ≥90% coverage, ≤30s, 0 type errors, ≤1 user-facing line).

observable outcome.

behavior and observable system response, not framework internals.

runtime, review, release, sync, repo-context, and cross-repo e2e.

plan file (Scenario 2), worktree-from-stale-canonical (Scenario 3), offline queue full (Scenario 6), wrong repo (Scenario 7).

adjacency that is excluded.

  • ✅ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain.
  • ✅ Requirements are testable and unambiguous — Every FR/NFR has a clear
  • ✅ Requirement types are separated (Functional / Non-Functional /
  • ✅ IDs are unique across FR-###, NFR-###, and C-### entries — IDs are
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value — All set to
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds — Each NFR has
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable — SC-001..SC-012 each name a concrete
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic — They reference operator
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined — Eight scenarios cover merge, intake,
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified — Interrupted merge (Scenario 1), oversized
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded — Out of Scope section names every tempting
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified — Both sections present.

Feature Readiness

to at least one Success Criterion or to an end-to-end scenario.

issue themes.

SCs, each tied to specific FR/NFR IDs.

and module names are deferred to plan.md.

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria — Each FR maps
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows — Eight scenarios across all six
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria — Twelve
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification — Concrete code paths

Notes

with the user's standing instruction to answer interview questions. Operator will perform final review at /spec-kitty-mission-review.

will decompose this into eight dependency-aware WPs as suggested in start-here.md.

  • Operator-confirmed deviation: this mission was authored in autonomous mode
  • The mission is large by design (six issue themes). The plan and tasks phases
  • All items pass on first iteration; no spec rewrite required.