cokit-cli 1.0.9 → 1.2.2

package/prompts/ck-simplify.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+agent: 'code-simplifier'
+description: 'Simplify and refine code for clarity and maintainability'
+argument-hint: 'Scope: file path, git diff, or "recent changes"'
+---
+
+## Context
+Scope:
+<scope>${input}</scope>
+
+**Principles:** YAGNI, KISS, DRY | Preserve functionality | Token efficiency
+
+## Simplification Rules
+
+- Reduce unnecessary nesting — prefer early returns and guard clauses
+- Eliminate redundant code and abstractions
+- Improve variable and function names for clarity
+- Consolidate related logic
+- Remove comments that describe obvious code
+- Choose clarity over brevity — explicit > compact
+- Never combine too many concerns into single functions
+- Never remove helpful abstractions that improve organization
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Identify scope**: Use `${input}` or default to recent `git diff` changes
+2. **Analyze**: Find complexity reduction opportunities
+3. **Apply standards**: Follow `./docs/code-standards.md` conventions
+4. **Refine**: Simplify without changing behavior
+5. **Verify**: Run typecheck + linter to confirm no breakage
+
+## Scope Rules
+
+- **Default**: Only refine recently modified code (git diff)
+- **Explicit path**: Review specified files/directories
+- **Never**: Refactor unrelated code or change architecture
+
+---
+
+## Suggested Next Steps
+
+| Command | Description |
+|---------|-------------|
+| `/ck-test` | Run tests to verify nothing broke |
+| `/ck-review` | Code review the simplified code |
+| `/ck-git` | Commit changes |

package/prompts/ck-spec-analyze.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+agent: 'agent'
+description: 'Cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec, plan, and tasks'
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+${input}
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Goal
+
+Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items across the three core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/ck-spec-tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.
+
+## Operating Constraints
+
+**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually).
+
+**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`constitution.md` at project root) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution conflicts are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the spec, plan, or tasks—not dilution, reinterpretation, or silent ignoring of the principle. If a principle itself needs to change, that must occur in a separate, explicit constitution update outside `/ck-spec-analyze`.
+
+## Execution Steps
+
+### 1. Initialize Analysis Context
+
+Run `{SCRIPT}` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths:
+
+- SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md
+- PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md
+- TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md (master file)
+- TASKS_DIR = FEATURE_DIR/tasks/ (phase files, if hybrid structure)
+
+Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).
+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").
+
+### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)
+
+Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:
+
+**From spec.md:**
+
+- Overview/Context
+- Functional Requirements
+- Non-Functional Requirements
+- User Stories
+- Edge Cases (if present)
+
+**From plan.md:**
+
+- Architecture/stack choices
+- Data Model references
+- Phases
+- Technical constraints
+
+**From tasks.md (and tasks/ if hybrid structure):**
+
+- Task IDs
+- Descriptions
+- Phase grouping (from master file or individual phase files)
+- Parallel markers [P]
+- Story labels [USx]
+- Referenced file paths
+- Phase dependencies and status
+
+**From constitution:**
+
+- Load `constitution.md` (project root) for principle validation
+
+### 3. Build Semantic Models
+
+Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):
+
+- **Requirements inventory**: Each functional + non-functional requirement with a stable key (derive slug based on imperative phrase; e.g., "User can upload file" → `user-can-upload-file`)
+- **User story/action inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria
+- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases)
+- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements
+
+### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
+
+Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary.
+
+#### A. Duplication Detection
+
+- Identify near-duplicate requirements
+- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation
+
+#### B. Ambiguity Detection
+
+- Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria
+- Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, `<placeholder>`, etc.)
+
+#### C. Underspecification
+
+- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome
+- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment
+- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec/plan
+
+#### D. Constitution Alignment
+
+- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle
+- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution
+
+#### E. Coverage Gaps
+
+- Requirements with zero associated tasks
+- Tasks with no mapped requirement/story
+- Non-functional requirements not reflected in tasks (e.g., performance, security)
+
+#### F. Inconsistency
+
+- Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files)
+- Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa)
+- Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note)
+- Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue)
+
+### 5. Severity Assignment
+
+Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:
+
+- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
+- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion
+- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case
+- **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order
+
+### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report
+
+Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:
+
+## Specification Analysis Report
+
+| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |
+|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|
+| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |
+
+(Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.)
+
+**Coverage Summary Table:**
+
+| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
+|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|
+
+**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)
+
+**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)
+
+**Metrics:**
+
+- Total Requirements
+- Total Tasks
+- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task)
+- Ambiguity Count
+- Duplication Count
+- Critical Issues Count
+
+### 7. Provide Next Actions
+
+At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:
+
+- If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `/ck-spec-implement`
+- If only LOW/MEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions
+- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., "Run /ck-spec-specify with refinement", "Run /ck-spec-plan to adjust architecture", "Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'"
+
+### 8. Offer Remediation
+
+Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)
+
+## Operating Principles
+
+### Context Efficiency
+
+- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: Focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis
+- **Token-efficient output**: Limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow
+- **Deterministic results**: Rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts
+
+### Analysis Guidelines
+
+- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis)
+- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent, report them accurately)
+- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)
+- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns)
+- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)
+
+## Context
+
+{ARGS}
+
+---
+
+## Suggested Next Steps
+
+| Command | Description | When to Use |
+|---------|-------------|-------------|
+| `/ck-spec-implement` | Start implementation | Analysis passed, no critical issues |
+| `/ck-spec-clarify` | Clarify requirements | Analysis found ambiguities in spec |
+| `/ck-spec-tasks` | Regenerate tasks | Task coverage gaps identified |
+| `/ck-fix` | Fix issues found in analysis | Code-level bugs identified |
+
+**Workflow:** `/ck-spec-analyze` → fix issues → `/ck-spec-implement`

package/prompts/ck-spec-checklist.prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1,308 @@
+---
+agent: 'agent'
+description: 'Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements'
+---
+
+## Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English"
+
+**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.
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+${input}
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
+
+## Execution Steps
+
+1. **Setup**: Run `{SCRIPT}` from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list.
+   - All file paths must be absolute.
+   - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").
+
+2. **Clarify intent (dynamic)**: Derive up to THREE initial contextual clarifying questions (no pre-baked catalog). They MUST:
+   - Be generated from the user's phrasing + extracted signals from spec/plan/tasks
+   - Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content
+   - Be skipped individually if already unambiguous in `${input}`
+   - Prefer precision over breadth
+
+   Generation algorithm:
+   1. 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").
+   2. Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance.
+   3. Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit.
+   4. Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria.
+   5. 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.
+
+3. **Understand user request**: Combine `${input}` + 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)
+
+4. **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
+
+5. **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 `/ck-spec-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]?"
+
+6. **Structure Reference**: Generate the checklist following the canonical template in `spec-kit/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.
+
+7. **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 `/ck-spec-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.
+
+## Example Checklist Types & Sample Items
+
+**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]"
+
+## Anti-Examples: What NOT To Do
+
+**❌ WRONG - These test implementation, not requirements:**
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] 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:**
+
+```markdown
+- [ ] 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?"
+
+---
+
+## Suggested Next Steps
+
+| Command | Description | When to Use |
+|---------|-------------|-------------|
+| `/ck-spec-clarify` | Clarify requirements | Checklist revealed gaps in spec |
+| `/ck-spec-plan` | Generate implementation plan | Checklist passed, spec is solid |
+| `/ck-spec-implement` | Start implementation | Plan exists, checklist validated |
+| `/ck-test` | Run tests to validate | Checklist passed, verify with tests |
+
+**Usage:** Run `/ck-spec-checklist [domain]` for focused validation (e.g., security, ux, api)