Speckit 04 Checklist

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Constitution Loading (REQUIRED)

Before ANY action, load and internalize the project constitution:

1. Read constitution:

   cat .specify/memory/constitution.md 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_CONSTITUTION"
   

2. If exists, parse all principles for checklist generation.

Prerequisites Check

1. Run prerequisites check:

   .tessl/tiles/tessl-labs/spec-kit/skills/speckit-01-specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json
   

2. Parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS.

Execution Steps

1. Clarify Intent

Derive up to THREE contextual clarifying questions. They MUST:

• Be generated from user's phrasing + signals from spec/plan/tasks
• Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content
• Be skipped if already unambiguous in $ARGUMENTS

Question archetypes:

• Scope refinement: "Should this include integration touchpoints?"
• Risk prioritization: "Which risk areas need mandatory gating checks?"
• Depth calibration: "Is this a lightweight sanity list or formal release gate?"
• Audience framing: "Will this be used by author only or peers during PR review?"
• Boundary exclusion: "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items?"

2. Load Feature Context

Read from FEATURE_DIR:

• spec.md: Feature requirements and scope
• plan.md (if exists): Technical details, dependencies
• tasks.md (if exists): Implementation tasks

3. Generate Checklist

Create FEATURE_DIR/checklists/[domain].md:

CORE PRINCIPLE - Test the Requirements, Not the Implementation:

Every checklist item MUST evaluate the REQUIREMENTS THEMSELVES for:

• Completeness: Are all necessary requirements present?
• Clarity: Are requirements unambiguous and specific?
• Consistency: Do requirements align with each other?
• Measurability: Can requirements be objectively verified?
• Coverage: Are all scenarios/edge cases addressed?

Category Structure - Group items by requirement quality dimensions:

• Requirement Completeness
• Requirement Clarity
• Requirement Consistency
• Acceptance Criteria Quality
• Scenario Coverage
• Edge Case Coverage
• Non-Functional Requirements
• Dependencies & Assumptions
• Ambiguities & Conflicts

HOW TO WRITE CHECKLIST ITEMS:

WRONG (Testing implementation):

• "Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards"
• "Test hover states work on desktop"
• "Confirm logo click navigates home"

CORRECT (Testing requirements quality):

• "Are the exact number and layout of featured episodes specified?" [Completeness]
• "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" [Clarity]
• "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" [Consistency]
• "Are keyboard navigation requirements defined for all interactive UI?" [Coverage]
• "Is the fallback behavior specified when logo image fails to load?" [Edge Cases]

ITEM STRUCTURE: Each item should follow this pattern:

• Question format asking about requirement quality
• Focus on what's WRITTEN (or not written) in the spec/plan
• Include quality dimension in brackets [Completeness/Clarity/Consistency/etc.]
• Reference spec section [Spec SS.Y] when checking existing requirements
• Use [Gap] marker when checking for missing requirements

Traceability Requirements:

• MINIMUM: >=80% of items MUST include at least one traceability reference
• Each item should reference: spec section, or use markers: [Gap], [Ambiguity], [Conflict], [Assumption]

ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED:

• Any item starting with "Verify", "Test", "Confirm", "Check" + implementation behavior
• References to code execution, user actions, system behavior
• "Displays correctly", "works properly", "functions as expected"
• "Click", "navigate", "render", "load", "execute"
• Test cases, test plans, QA procedures
• Implementation details (frameworks, APIs, algorithms)

REQUIRED PATTERNS:

• "Are [requirement type] defined/specified/documented for [scenario]?"
• "Is [vague term] quantified/clarified with specific criteria?"
• "Are requirements consistent between [section A] and [section B]?"
• "Can [requirement] be objectively measured/verified?"
• "Are [edge cases/scenarios] addressed in requirements?"
• "Does the spec define [missing aspect]?"

4. Checklist Format

Use template structure:

# [CHECKLIST TYPE] Checklist: [FEATURE NAME]

**Purpose**: [Brief description]
**Created**: [DATE]
**Feature**: [Link to spec.md]

## [Category 1]

- [ ] CHK001 - [Requirement quality question] [Quality Dimension, Spec Reference]
- [ ] CHK002 - [Requirement quality question] [Quality Dimension, Gap]

## [Category 2]

- [ ] CHK003 - [Another requirement quality question] [Quality Dimension]

## Notes

- Check items off as completed: `[x]`
- Items are numbered sequentially (CHK001, CHK002, etc.)

5. Gap Resolution (Interactive)

If checklist contains [Gap] items, guide the user through resolving them one by one:

1. Count gaps: Identify all items marked with [Gap]

2. For each gap, present:

   ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
   Gap 1 of N: [CHK00X]
   ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
   
   **Missing Requirement:**
   [Quote the checklist item]
   
   **Why This Matters:**
   [Brief explanation of risk if left unspecified]
   
   **Suggested Options:**
   
   | Option | Description | Implications |
   |--------|-------------|--------------|
   | A | [First reasonable default] | [Trade-offs] |
   | B | [Alternative approach] | [Trade-offs] |
   | C | [Another option] | [Trade-offs] |
   | Skip | Leave unspecified for now | Will remain as [Gap] |
   
   **Your choice (A/B/C/Skip/Custom):** _
   

3. Process user response:

   • If A/B/C: Update spec.md with the new requirement
   • If Skip: Leave as [Gap], continue to next
   • If Custom: Add user's custom text to spec.md

4. After each resolved gap:

   • Mark the checklist item as [x] (complete)
   • Show confirmation of what was added to spec
   • Move to next gap

5. Summary after all gaps processed:

   Gap Resolution Complete:
   - Resolved: X items (added to spec.md)
   - Skipped: Y items (remain as [Gap])
   - Total gaps: Z
   
   Spec updated at: specs/NNN-feature/spec.md
   

Skip gap resolution if: User passes --no-interactive flag or there are no [Gap] items.

6. Report

Output:

• Full path to created checklist
• Item count
• Gap resolution summary (if applicable)
• Summary:
  • Focus areas selected
  • Depth level
  • Actor/timing
  • Any user-specified must-have items incorporated

Example Checklist Types

UX Requirements Quality: ux.md

• "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined with measurable criteria?" [Clarity, Spec SFR-1]
• "Is the number and positioning of UI elements explicitly specified?" [Completeness]
• "Are interaction state requirements (hover, focus, active) consistently defined?" [Consistency]

API Requirements Quality: api.md

• "Are error response formats specified for all failure scenarios?" [Completeness]
• "Are rate limiting requirements quantified with specific thresholds?" [Clarity]
• "Are authentication requirements consistent across all endpoints?" [Consistency]

Security Requirements Quality: security.md

• "Are authentication requirements specified for all protected resources?" [Coverage]
• "Are data protection requirements defined for sensitive information?" [Completeness]
• "Is the threat model documented and requirements aligned to it?" [Traceability]

Next Steps

After creating and resolving checklists:

1. If gaps remain: Run /speckit-04-checklist again to continue gap resolution
2. When all gaps resolved: Run /speckit-06-tasks to generate the task breakdown

Suggest to user:

Checklist complete!

Gaps resolved: X (added to spec)
Gaps remaining: Y

Next steps:
- /speckit-04-checklist - (If gaps remain) Continue resolving requirement gaps
- /speckit-06-tasks - Generate task breakdown from plan

Note: /speckit-08-implement requires all checklists to be 100% complete (no [ ] items).