# Specification Quality Checklist: Enforce Creation-Time Finding Invariants

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning  
**Created**: 2026-04-29  
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)

## Content Quality

- [x] Repo-specific classes, routes, file paths, and validation commands appear only where they are required to keep the three active writer families and proof obligations unambiguous
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
- [x] Written for product and review stakeholders, with repo-grounded detail only where the bounded invariant target would otherwise stay ambiguous
- [x] All mandatory sections completed

## Requirement Completeness

- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
- [x] Success criteria are measurable
- [x] Success criteria stay outcome-oriented even though the package names concrete writer families and proof files needed to bound the slice
- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined
- [x] Edge cases are identified
- [x] Scope is clearly bounded
- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified

## Feature Readiness

- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows
- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
- [x] No unbounded implementation plan leaks into the specification; repo-specific commands and paths stay limited to selection, dependency, and validation context

## Test Governance Review

- [x] Lane fit is explicit: the package uses `fast-feedback` and `confidence`, with the three writer suites as the primary proof and only bounded recurrence, consumer, and trigger-authorization regressions where FR-255-005, FR-255-006, FR-255-009, and FR-255-011 require them.
- [x] No new browser or heavy-governance family is introduced; adjacent proof remains inside existing feature suites only.
- [x] Suite-cost outcome stays bounded and reviewable: the package reuses existing writer, recurrence, consumer, and auth suites without adding a new default-heavy harness.

## Review Outcome

- [x] Review outcome class: `acceptable-special-case`
- [x] Workflow outcome: `keep`
- [x] Review-note location is explicit: guardrail, lane-fit, and bounded-proof notes live in `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, and this checklist.

## Notes

- Repo-surface names, validation commands, and current writer/test anchors are intentionally present because this prep package must distinguish the three active finding writers from already-completed adjacent cleanup specs.
- The spec remains behavior-first: write-time lifecycle readiness, recurrence identity, reopen truth, and unchanged RBAC/tenant isolation are the product outcomes; repo details only keep the package reviewable and bounded.
- No blocking open question remains for safe planning.