Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Upgrade idempotency — no divergent per-worktree metadata stamps

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-09-24 Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — root-cause file:line pointers are kept in Assumptions/Key Entities as traceability, not as requirement prose
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs (mission stays drivable after a repeat upgrade)
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders (operator/teammate framing)
  • ✅ 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
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (prevention-only; C-001/C-004 name exclusions)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (repeat run; teammate first-run on already-upgraded main)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification

Notes

  • Fix strategy confirmed by operator Decision Moment 01M38X487WENDRSAEY24BN841K: prevention-only.
  • SC-004 explicitly guards against a #2385 regression (genuine upgrades must still stamp/commit).