Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: SymbolKey source_module provenance field

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-08-18 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — field/dataclass mechanics are named because this is a test-infra change where the surface IS the requirement; the how (compare=False) is deferred to plan
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (maintainer removing a comment-hygiene safety dependency)
  • ✅ Written for the relevant stakeholder (repo maintainer/developer)
  • ✅ 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 (outcome-framed)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (locked D1/D2 decisions; explicit non-goals)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the named surface

Notes

  • Scope decisions D1 (delete parse-path atomically, keep comment text) and D2 (backfill all 338) are locked by the operator; captured as FR-003/FR-004 and C-004.
  • Non-goals (C-001, C-002) mirror the #3552 issue's own non-goals.