Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Upgrade reports one outcome

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning Created: 2026-10-04 Mission: spec.md

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders
  • ✅ 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-###, C-### and SC-### entries, and match the requirement-ID grammar (optional lowercase letter suffix; <mission-slug>#<ID> only for another mission's ID)
  • ✅ All requirement rows include a non-empty Status value
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements include measurable thresholds
  • ✅ Every FR row and success criterion carries a delivery label and no-op mark
  • ✅ Success criteria are measurable
  • ✅ Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified

Mission Readiness

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

Notes

  • The spec names CLI flags and JSON keys (--yes, status, errors) because they are the user-visible contract of the command under repair, not implementation detail.
  • One operator decision stays open (exit code on unresolved drift); the spec proceeds on the pinned non-zero contract (C-002).