CRITICAL CONCEPT: Checklists are UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
NOT for verification/testing:
- ❌ NOT "Verify the button clicks correctly"
- ❌ NOT "Test error handling works"
- ❌ NOT "Confirm the API returns 200"
- ❌ NOT checking if code/implementation matches the spec
FOR requirements quality validation:
- ✅ "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined for all card types?" (completeness)
- ✅ "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" (clarity)
- ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
- ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage)
- ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases)
Metaphor: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works.
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
-
Setup: Run
.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json
from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list.
- All file paths must be absolute.
- For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
-
Clarify intent (dynamic): Derive up to THREE initial contextual clarifying questions (no pre-baked catalog). They MUST:
- Be generated from the user's phrasing + extracted signals from spec/plan/tasks
- Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content
- Be skipped individually if already unambiguous in
$ARGUMENTS
- Prefer precision over breadth
Generation algorithm:
- Extract signals: feature domain keywords (e.g., auth, latency, UX, API), risk indicators ("critical", "must", "compliance"), stakeholder hints ("QA", "review", "security team"), and explicit deliverables ("a11y", "rollback", "contracts").
- Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance.
- Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit.
- Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria.
- Formulate questions chosen from these archetypes:
- Scope refinement (e.g., "Should this include integration touchpoints with X and Y or stay limited to local module correctness?")
- Risk prioritization (e.g., "Which of these potential risk areas should receive mandatory gating checks?")
- Depth calibration (e.g., "Is this a lightweight pre-commit sanity list or a formal release gate?")
- Audience framing (e.g., "Will this be used by the author only or peers during PR review?")
- Boundary exclusion (e.g., "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items this round?")
- Scenario class gap (e.g., "No recovery flows detected—are rollback / partial failure paths in scope?")
Question formatting rules:
- If presenting options, generate a compact table with columns: Option | Candidate | Why It Matters
- Limit to A–E options maximum; omit table if a free-form answer is clearer
- Never ask the user to restate what they already said
- Avoid speculative categories (no hallucination). If uncertain, ask explicitly: "Confirm whether X belongs in scope."
Defaults when interaction impossible:
- Depth: Standard
- Audience: Reviewer (PR) if code-related; Author otherwise
- Focus: Top 2 relevance clusters
Output the questions (label Q1/Q2/Q3). After answers: if ≥2 scenario classes (Alternate / Exception / Recovery / Non-Functional domain) remain unclear, you MAY ask up to TWO more targeted follow‑ups (Q4/Q5) with a one-line justification each (e.g., "Unresolved recovery path risk"). Do not exceed five total questions. Skip escalation if user explicitly declines more.
-
Understand user request: Combine
$ARGUMENTS
+ clarifying answers:
- Derive checklist theme (e.g., security, review, deploy, ux)
- Consolidate explicit must-have items mentioned by user
- Map focus selections to category scaffolding
- Infer any missing context from spec/plan/tasks (do NOT hallucinate)
-
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
Context Loading Strategy:
- Load only necessary portions relevant to active focus areas (avoid full-file dumping)
- Prefer summarizing long sections into concise scenario/requirement bullets
- Use progressive disclosure: add follow-on retrieval only if gaps detected
- If source docs are large, generate interim summary items instead of embedding raw text
-
Generate checklist - Create "Unit Tests for Requirements":
- Create
FEATURE_DIR/checklists/
directory if it doesn't exist
- Generate unique checklist filename:
- Use short, descriptive name based on domain (e.g.,
ux.md
, api.md
, security.md
)
- Format:
[domain].md
- If file exists, append to existing file
- Number items sequentially starting from CHK001
- Each
/speckit.checklist
run creates a NEW file (never overwrites existing checklists)
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 (Are all necessary requirements documented?)
- Requirement Clarity (Are requirements specific and unambiguous?)
- Requirement Consistency (Do requirements align without conflicts?)
- Acceptance Criteria Quality (Are success criteria measurable?)
- Scenario Coverage (Are all flows/cases addressed?)
- Edge Case Coverage (Are boundary conditions defined?)
- Non-Functional Requirements (Performance, Security, Accessibility, etc. - are they specified?)
- Dependencies & Assumptions (Are they documented and validated?)
- Ambiguities & Conflicts (What needs clarification?)
HOW TO WRITE CHECKLIST ITEMS - "Unit Tests for English":
❌ 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]
- "Are loading states defined for asynchronous episode data?" [Completeness]
- "Does the spec define visual hierarchy for competing UI elements?" [Clarity]
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 §X.Y]
when checking existing requirements
- Use
[Gap]
marker when checking for missing requirements
EXAMPLES BY QUALITY DIMENSION:
Completeness:
- "Are error handling requirements defined for all API failure modes? [Gap]"
- "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Completeness]"
- "Are mobile breakpoint requirements defined for responsive layouts? [Gap]"
Clarity:
- "Is 'fast loading' quantified with specific timing thresholds? [Clarity, Spec §NFR-2]"
- "Are 'related episodes' selection criteria explicitly defined? [Clarity, Spec §FR-5]"
- "Is 'prominent' defined with measurable visual properties? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-4]"
Consistency:
- "Do navigation requirements align across all pages? [Consistency, Spec §FR-10]"
- "Are card component requirements consistent between landing and detail pages? [Consistency]"
Coverage:
- "Are requirements defined for zero-state scenarios (no episodes)? [Coverage, Edge Case]"
- "Are concurrent user interaction scenarios addressed? [Coverage, Gap]"
- "Are requirements specified for partial data loading failures? [Coverage, Exception Flow]"
Measurability:
- "Are visual hierarchy requirements measurable/testable? [Acceptance Criteria, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Can 'balanced visual weight' be objectively verified? [Measurability, Spec §FR-2]"
Scenario Classification & Coverage (Requirements Quality Focus):
- Check if requirements exist for: Primary, Alternate, Exception/Error, Recovery, Non-Functional scenarios
- For each scenario class, ask: "Are [scenario type] requirements complete, clear, and consistent?"
- If scenario class missing: "Are [scenario type] requirements intentionally excluded or missing? [Gap]"
- Include resilience/rollback when state mutation occurs: "Are rollback requirements defined for migration failures? [Gap]"
Traceability Requirements:
- MINIMUM: ≥80% of items MUST include at least one traceability reference
- Each item should reference: spec section
[Spec §X.Y]
, or use markers: [Gap]
, [Ambiguity]
, [Conflict]
, [Assumption]
- If no ID system exists: "Is a requirement & acceptance criteria ID scheme established? [Traceability]"
Surface & Resolve Issues (Requirements Quality Problems):
Ask questions about the requirements themselves:
- Ambiguities: "Is the term 'fast' quantified with specific metrics? [Ambiguity, Spec §NFR-1]"
- Conflicts: "Do navigation requirements conflict between §FR-10 and §FR-10a? [Conflict]"
- Assumptions: "Is the assumption of 'always available podcast API' validated? [Assumption]"
- Dependencies: "Are external podcast API requirements documented? [Dependency, Gap]"
- Missing definitions: "Is 'visual hierarchy' defined with measurable criteria? [Gap]"
Content Consolidation:
- Soft cap: If raw candidate items > 40, prioritize by risk/impact
- Merge near-duplicates checking the same requirement aspect
- If >5 low-impact edge cases, create one item: "Are edge cases X, Y, Z addressed in requirements? [Coverage]"
🚫 ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED - These make it an implementation test, not a requirements test:
- ❌ 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 - These test requirements quality:
- ✅ "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]?"
-
Structure Reference: Generate the checklist following the canonical template in
.specify/templates/checklist-template.md
for title, meta section, category headings, and ID formatting. If template is unavailable, use: H1 title, purpose/created meta lines, ##
category sections containing - [ ] CHK### <requirement item>
lines with globally incrementing IDs starting at CHK001.
-
Report: Output full path to created checklist, item count, and remind user that each run creates a new file. Summarize:
- Focus areas selected
- Depth level
- Actor/timing
- Any explicit user-specified must-have items incorporated
Important: Each
/speckit.checklist
command invocation creates a checklist file using short, descriptive names unless file already exists. This allows:
- Multiple checklists of different types (e.g.,
ux.md
, test.md
, security.md
)
- Simple, memorable filenames that indicate checklist purpose
- Easy identification and navigation in the
checklists/
folder
To avoid clutter, use descriptive types and clean up obsolete checklists when done.
UX Requirements Quality:
ux.md
Sample items (testing the requirements, NOT the implementation):
- "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined with measurable criteria? [Clarity, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Is the number and positioning of UI elements explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Are interaction state requirements (hover, focus, active) consistently defined? [Consistency]"
- "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Coverage, Gap]"
- "Is fallback behavior defined when images fail to load? [Edge Case, Gap]"
- "Can 'prominent display' be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-4]"
API Requirements Quality:
api.md
Sample items:
- "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]"
- "Are retry/timeout requirements defined for external dependencies? [Coverage, Gap]"
- "Is versioning strategy documented in requirements? [Gap]"
Performance Requirements Quality:
performance.md
Sample items:
- "Are performance requirements quantified with specific metrics? [Clarity]"
- "Are performance targets defined for all critical user journeys? [Coverage]"
- "Are performance requirements under different load conditions specified? [Completeness]"
- "Can performance requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability]"
- "Are degradation requirements defined for high-load scenarios? [Edge Case, Gap]"
Security Requirements Quality:
security.md
Sample items:
- "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]"
- "Are security requirements consistent with compliance obligations? [Consistency]"
- "Are security failure/breach response requirements defined? [Gap, Exception Flow]"
❌ WRONG - These test implementation, not requirements:
- [ ] CHK001 - Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards [Spec §FR-001]
- [ ] CHK002 - Test hover states work correctly on desktop [Spec §FR-003]
- [ ] CHK003 - Confirm logo click navigates to home page [Spec §FR-010]
- [ ] CHK004 - Check that related episodes section shows 3-5 items [Spec §FR-005]
✅ CORRECT - These test requirements quality:
- [ ] CHK001 - Are the number and layout of featured episodes explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001]
- [ ] CHK002 - Are hover state requirements consistently defined for all interactive elements? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003]
- [ ] CHK003 - Are navigation requirements clear for all clickable brand elements? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010]
- [ ] CHK004 - Is the selection criteria for related episodes documented? [Gap, Spec §FR-005]
- [ ] CHK005 - Are loading state requirements defined for asynchronous episode data? [Gap]
- [ ] CHK006 - Can "visual hierarchy" requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-001]
Key Differences:
- Wrong: Tests if the system works correctly
- Correct: Tests if the requirements are written correctly
- Wrong: Verification of behavior
- Correct: Validation of requirement quality
- Wrong: "Does it do X?"
- Correct: "Is X clearly specified?"