Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist

Audience: Spec Kitty maintainers. Created: 2026-09-06. Mission: upgrade-preview-mission-health-01M1V6E1. Specification: ../spec.md.

Content Quality

  • ✅ User outcomes precede implementation design; technical mechanisms stay in research/plan.
  • ✅ Focused on operator trust and corpus integrity.
  • ✅ Audience identified and canonical Mission terminology used.
  • ✅ Mandatory scenario, requirement and success sections populated.

Requirement Completeness

  • ✅ No deferred clarification markers; operator confirmed brief and skip discovery.
  • ✅ Requirements are observable and unambiguous.
  • ✅ Functional, non-functional and constraint rows separated.
  • ✅ FR-001..FR-011, NFR-001..NFR-004 and C-001..C-006 are distinct.
  • ✅ All requirement rows have populated status.
  • ✅ Non-functional requirements have exact mutation/compatibility/evidence thresholds.
  • ✅ Success criteria independently verifiable.
  • ✅ Acceptance scenarios cover primary and exceptional paths.
  • ✅ Scope excludes release changes, hosted API changes and mass warning repair.
  • ✅ Sources, baseline, consent and historical evidence assumptions explicit.

Readiness

  • ✅ Four issues each map to observable scenarios and requirements.
  • ✅ Existing root-entrypoint and strict JSON false-positive risks addressed.
  • ✅ Research preserves full cyclic mission history, not only identity metadata.
  • ✅ Post-spec independent reviews fully reconciled before commit.
  • ✅ Substantive spec and metadata committed through spec-commit (6ada9613).

Notes

This is document-quality validation, not a claim of implemented behavior. Architect Alphonso, Debugger Debbie and Reviewer Renata approved the draft, each with scoped file/line evidence in external post-spec review reports. Runtime specify returned a marker prompt (#3909); canonical source prompt used instead. Governance resolution is degraded (#3908), disclosed.