Checklists

requirements.md

Specification Quality Checklist: Verdict-Seam Boundary Hardening

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

Content Quality

  • ✅ No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) — NOTE: this is an internal-hardening mission; requirements necessarily name code surfaces (façade, census, arbiter) as the domain objects. Kept at the boundary/behavior level, not line-by-line HOW.
  • ✅ Focused on user value and business needs — value framed as boundary integrity, crash-freedom, machine-surface parity, CI hygiene for the maintainer/runtime.
  • ✅ Written for non-technical stakeholders — Context + purpose_tldr legible; deep detail confined to requirement rows.
  • ✅ 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 — NOTE: SC intentionally reference guard/census/CI surfaces because those ARE the deliverable; each remains verifiable via a stated observable (grep count, teeth test, red→green).
  • ✅ All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • ✅ Edge cases are identified
  • ✅ Scope is clearly bounded (5 issues; explicit non-goals via C-001)
  • ✅ Dependencies and assumptions identified (ordering C-002, collateral scope, census over-narrowing)

Feature Readiness

  • ✅ All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • ✅ User scenarios cover primary flows (5 stories map 1:1 to the 5 issues)
  • ✅ Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • ✅ No implementation details leak into specification beyond the necessary code-surface domain naming

Notes

  • This is a follow-on hardening mission grounded by a 3-lens research squad against upstream/main tip (3ac01d247); the spec encodes the corrected scope (10 façade symbols not 8; 8 consumers not 6; 4 collateral imports; hard export-before-dedup ordering; submodule-name-targeted guard widening).
  • Operator adjudications baked in: #3255 included; #3256 full stress lane included here (not split); #3254 collateral fully migrated (no exemption ledger).
  • Standing-order process constraints (C-007) — point-cut squads, tracer files, commit/push on point-cuts — will be exercised during plan/tasks/implement.