No external API in core data path

PM's specific service suggestions not adopted blindly

Expense submission works offline in spec

Currency conversion handled offline

Local storage as primary in plan

Sync designed as optional enhancement

Conflict resolution addressed

Spec uses numbered requirements

Spec has acceptance scenarios

Spec is technology-agnostic

Plan references spec requirements

No governance restated in plan

Spec does not promise network-dependent core features

plan.md exists

Technical Context fields

No bare Option labels

research.md with rationale

data-model.md entities

State transitions in data-model

contracts/ directory

Contracts reference spec requirements

quickstart.md exists with scenarios

No governance content in plan

Spec quality assessment performed

Plan decisions trace to spec FRs

context.json updated

Exactly 3 user stories in spec

No mentioned-but-deferred features in spec

No excluded features in plan

No excluded features in tasks

Spec uses numbered requirements

Spec has acceptance scenarios

FR count proportional to scope

Task count proportional to scope

Data model matches scope

Plan tech stack appropriate for scope

Tasks use structured format

Accessibility addressed

T-BNNN task ID format

At least 1 fix task with TS ref

TDD task references test spec

bugs.md BUG-NNN entry

bugs.md required fields

bugs.md date format

Existing tasks unmodified

Bug ID in task descriptions

New .feature file created

TS-XXX tags present

FR-XXX tags present

SC-XXX tags present

SC-XXX majority coverage

US-XXX tags present

Priority tags present

Test type tags present

DO NOT MODIFY header

Feature-level US tag

All acceptance scenarios covered

TS-XXX uniqueness

Spec is technology-agnostic

Plan has no governance content

FR-XXX to TS-XXX coverage

TS-XXX to task coverage

.feature files have DO NOT MODIFY headers

.feature files have required tags

Tasks ordered: Setup → Foundational → Stories → Polish

TDD task ordering within story phases

No phantom requirements

Privacy constraint in .feature files

No FR orphans in either direction

TS-XXX IDs are unique across files

File paths match plan structure

Every user story has tagged tasks

Setup/Foundational tasks have no story tags

TS references are comma-separated

TS references match provided .feature files

Priority ordering respected

Phase structure complete

[P] markers only on parallelizable tasks

No technologies beyond the plan

Checkbox format used

Sequential T-prefixed IDs

NEEDS CLARIFICATION flagged

FR count assessed

Measurable criteria warning

Quality score reported

Semantic diff present

Semantic diff format

Downstream impact flagged

Updated plan has new dependencies

Updated architecture diagram

No governance in plan

Clarification assumptions documented

No technology in spec.md

No governance in plan.md

FR-XXX requirements in spec

SC-XXX success criteria in spec

User stories in spec

Given/When/Then scenarios in spec

Plan references spec FRs

Every spec FR traceable to plan

No phantom requirements in plan

data-model.md traces to spec entities

Connection-lost requirement survives to plan

No technology stack in spec

FR-XXX numbered requirements

SC-XXX success criteria

Given/When/Then scenarios

User stories present

Measurable success criteria

Max 3 NEEDS CLARIFICATION

No implementation details

2-4 word branch name

Requirements.md checklist created

Sequential T-prefixed IDs

[P] marker usage

[USn] label on story tasks

Comma-separated TS references

Phase 1 Setup section

Phase 2 Foundational section

User Story phases ordered by priority

File paths in descriptions

Checkbox format

Polish/Final phase

.feature files cover all FRs

DO NOT MODIFY headers present

All required tags on every Scenario

TS-XXX IDs unique across all files

Scenarios match spec acceptance criteria

Privacy/auth scenario present

Every story task references TS-XXX

TS references are comma-separated

Test tasks before production tasks per story

Task file paths match plan structure

Phase structure and sequential IDs

Concurrency test scenario present

ASCII architecture diagram

Named components in diagram

context.json exists

planview.nodeClassifications key

Existing data preserved

Client node classified

Server node classified

Storage node classified

External node classified

No technology stack in constitution

No implementation details

At least 3 principles

Principles are declarative

Semver version present

Amendment procedure present

.specify/context.json created

TDD determination value valid

Principles are domain-agnostic

Testing philosophy explicitly stated

Dates in ISO format

No feature-specific content