Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Fix sync strict-JSON ingress-skip auth

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-06-29 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — code paths named only as domain entities, not prescribed solutions
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (trustworthy CI signal)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (purpose/scope readable; technical names confined to Key Entities)
  • ✅ All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • □ No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain — one deliberate, user-deferred marker present (CI-trigger scope, decision 01KWA6Q7SPH9ZN20CH6EW68QDM)
  • ✅ 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
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified (current-failure path documented)
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (core vs. research-gated vs. out of scope)
  • ✅ 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

Notes

  • The single remaining [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker is intentional and user-confirmed: the user chose "decide after research" for the CI-trigger blind-spot scope (FR-007). It is registered as a deferred Decision Moment (01KWA6Q7SPH9ZN20CH6EW68QDM), not an unresolved quality gap. It does not block planning of the core root-cause fix.