# Specification Quality Checklist: Coverage, Dead-Code Visibility, and Quality Gates

**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
**Created**: 2026-07-26
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)

## Content Quality

- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
- [x] Focused on user value and business needs
- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders
- [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 are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
- [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 implementation details leak into specification

## Notes

- Clarification resolved 2026-07-26 (Option A): the patch-coverage gate is
  self-hosted — in-repo diff tooling against the PR base branch, enforced as a
  CI step; no external coverage service. Spec US3 scenario 5 and Assumptions
  updated accordingly.
- This is inherently a developer-tooling feature, so the "users" are
  contributors/maintainers; requirements name ecosystems (Rust/Python
  coverage, CI) without prescribing specific tools (tool choices recorded as
  assumptions or left to the plan phase).
