Well, I don't so much as look at weaknesses, but rather I look at faults. Like you could have a perfect op deity but they're so above humans that they cannot sympathize with them and that fault could lead to interesting character studies/plot points.
I ALSO agree with @dawgofdawgness 's comment here. Your story is your story, so if you really feel like you shouldn't change it according to someone's feedback, then roll with it. It might be that you've already subconsciously attributed a weakness to the said character, and that it will showcase itself in time.
If you have troubly deciding, ask from someone who, you know to adore your story - their feedback is oftentimes better in these kinds of push-and-pull situations.
Honestly, as you develop a character their flaws will come about organically.
Every trait you include will build up to their character faults.
I mean, they could have amazing abilities that are virtually unstoppable but they could also be really miserable about that because they're so bored. They could be extremely intelligent but alienate others because they come across as pretentious. They might be extremely likeable and popular, but the result would be that nobody is truly close to them and everyone is just "sort of" their friend.
Characters are based on humans so flaws just eventually come together so long as you flesh the character out and are consistent.
Sometimes you might not think of something as a flaw, but in context it could become one.
Is it possible you're thinking of a 'weakness' the wrong way? A weakness doesn't necessarily need to be a huge, dramatic character flaw. Sometimes it's just the sort of mistakes the character tends to make most often due to their personality. I get the impression you think that a weakness is something imposed artificially from the outside, when it actually should just feel like an organic part of the characters personality/psychology.
Could you give us more information about this character, and their role in the story?
I think what you mean by weakness is a flaw. No one likes a perfect character. That character has to have some sort of flaw. You can always give it a try, but flawed characters are better than those that are flawless.
Unless that character is hillariously flawless.
Totally ok with that, and I'll add that even some of the traits that you will see as positive, not only may be a flaw in certain circumstances, but can even be a flaw at all time for some people. Eg. for me, things generally considered positive like being very confident, or being bubbly, are flaws and will almost always make me suspicious. Ok, I'm very weird, so it may be an extreme example, but you see what I mean. Depending on the readers, your 'too perfect' character may already have flaws.
nah, i just go ham creating my characters instead of fussing over how balanced they are. the more you get a feel for writing them the more their personality comes into shape. its so much more enjoyable than trying to create a balanced and structured list of positives and flaws.
my character elisha? 100% self indulgent oc at first. hes a wealthy, sweethearted vampire with a pretty face and a high position of power. huge mary sue. but the more i wrote him in sundown his character and weaknesses really naturally fleshed itself out. he overshares, has issues feeling like hes not in control of the current situation, blames himself for things out of his control etc. this isnt stuff i really set up or even thought about at all? it just kinda happened naturally.
I think the only flawless character that comes to mind for me atm who's very likable is Master Oogway from Kung Fu Panda, so arguably, no, it's not really a requirement, however you would have to make up for it by other means to make the story not boring, see it'd only be a 35 second movie if Master Oogway had to fight Tai Lung instead of Po, and I know that it'd be a 35 second movie because there is a scene in the actual movie where exactly that happens.
So, summa summarum... Write characters, not mannequins with "flaws" and "strengths". Writers deal with "real" people, even if they're just characters on the pages of your book. Same goes for the worlds that you create, whether fictional or not.
after reading the responses in the thread I think I've already found my answer.
I realized that a thing that actually does make the character what one might call imperfect is the fact that she has no choice but to go along with the rules set for her as her job in my story and goes after the protagonist to attempt to arrest her for "stealing" an object a regular person wouldn't be allowed to posess... but they end up being forced together in a situation and will have no choice but to work together to get out of it despite the fact that she knows it's "wrong" to do.
sorry for the long explanation, I was just trying to give some more background info since you asked
Yeah, that sounds find to me. Or, at least, you don't need to worry about this character not having weaknesses. Dealing with obligations of the job and right/wrong makes for good drama. 
At the very least every single significant character needs a flaw or multiple flaws. Not having any flaws would just make the character seem boring and blank (reason why we have the whole "Mary Sue" and "Gary Stu" tropes). However, I'd also add that having too many flaws can detract from a character, as it may seem like you are making them suffer for the sake of suffering.
A character having a "flaw" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a weakness. When people say that all characters need a flaw, they don't mean it like that. They just mean that no realistic character should be perfect because no one is really perfect in real life. Not being perfect can literally mean anything the writer doesn't consider as "perfection". Maybe that character isn't too attractive, or maybe they are stubborn or literally whatever you can think of. It's up to you to decide whether you want to portray a realistic character or not.
depends. If we're talking about a human, yep. Otherwise they will come across as annoying.
If it's a god-being probably not. They can afford to be perfect. Main characters should never be perfect imho.
This doesn't mean all characters have to be "crippled" etc. A character flaw can be for example, someone who judges people at face value. Maybe they're quick to lose their temper? Maybe they hold grudges? These can all be considered a flaw in character.
I've always been of the opinion that virtues and how they are applied--correctly and incorrectly--are what truly makes an interesting character, not flaws. People don't love Spider-Man because he's always down on his luck, they love him because even though he's down on his luck he puts others before himself.
This could be a really interesting struggle.
Maybe this character is too attached to the rules. This could be for different reasons.
for example, it could be because of a strong need for order or maybe for the need to feel adecuate in front of that society.
Choosing between following the rules and doing the right thing can be this character`s dilema.
I don't really think so. Not everyone has that defining or really visible flaw. It depends on a story, really, you can take LotR for example. Of 9 main characters, only 2 have real flaws: Boromir is easily manipulated, and Pippin is a bit dim. Two are a bit flawed, like Gimly and Legolas, who are a little bit racist at first. Other five are almost all positive traits: loyal, smart, honorable, able and selfless. Still, all are very good written characters.
Another good example are the MCU (non GotG) main cast, mostly only Tony has real flaws. Banner has his struggles, but both he and Hulk, are mostly positive traits. Cap is a bit bullheaded, but still a paragon.
So, no, your characters don't have to have a real flaw. Real people can't be good at everything, and we all have weaknesses, but even a weakness isn't necessarily a flaw. Like Aang's unwillingness to kill, gave him a bunch of trouble and was perceived as weakness by most (even his previous incarnations), but you can't really call it a character flaw.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I say yes, because like many characters, without one, they're kinda just there.
But I also say no, because you can go about crafting your characters (like a goofy slapstick one), and let the audience determine and understand their flaws. A kind of show, don't tell kind of ordeal. Those are the best kinds of characters to me.
