requirements-discovery
Skill4 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Interactive requirements gathering that produces machine-executable specs for microservices. Guides conversation through structured rounds to produce a complete requirements doc where every section maps to a code artifact (SQL, Zod schemas, handlers, tests). Triggers on "new feature", "new service", "requirements", "I want to build", "let's spec out", "define requirements".
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- RafaelFerSilva/refinement-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- z-Zihan/Evirtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- kid0317/crewai_mas_demotheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- breeze-lyf/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 5, 2026
- hkarpinen/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 15, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- kid0317/crewai_mas_demo★ 164same name
- z-Zihan/Evir★ 11same name
- RafaelFerSilva/refinement-agent-skills★ 2same name
- breeze-lyf/skills★ 1same name
- hkarpinen/agent-skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-notepadSkill
- architecture-reviewerSkill
- backend-service-auditorSkill
- channel-listenerSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- coder-file-transferSkill
- cold-start-generatorSkill
- creating-skillsSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- dark-factory-buildSkill
- dependency-risk-auditorSkill
- df-adversary-gateSkill
- df-app-walkthroughSkill
- df-context-storeSkill
- df-data-transform-lensSkill
- df-dispatch-subagentsSkill
- df-infrastructureSkill
- df-observabilitySkill
- df-product-ownerSkill
- df-qaSkill
- df-solution-architectSkill
- df-tdd-developerSkill
- df-ui-verifySkill
- df-video-intakeSkill
- dx-maintainability-reviewerSkill
- frontend-auditorSkill
- handoffSkill
- microservices-architectSkill
- production-readiness-reviewerSkill
- repo-docsSkill
- sc-auditSkill
- sc-devSkill
- scope-initSkill
- scope-retireSkill
- security-threat-modelerSkill
- service-mapperSkill
- test-quality-gatekeeperSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- vinculum-loopSkill
- vinculum-mapSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- work-autonomouslySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
When someone says "I want to build [X]"
- Distinctive: line 23
Before asking any questions:
- Distinctive: line 24
Read the project's CLAUDE.md for architecture patterns and conventions
- Very specific: line 25
Read docs/service-map.md (or equivalent) for existing services and responsibilities
- Very specific: line 26
Read REQUIREMENTS-TEMPLATE.md in this skill's directory for the output format
- Distinctive: line 33
Ask ALL of these. Do NOT proceed until answered:
- Distinctive: line 41
After answers: Summarize your understanding.
- Distinctive: line 52
CHALLENGE vague answers: If someone says "it needs price data," ask: "Live price from the exchange, or cached market data, or calculated …
- Distinctive: line 94
After all 4 rounds, generate the complete document.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Requirements Discovery
Transform a vague feature description into a precise, machine-executable requirements document. Every section of the output maps 1:1 to a code artifact.
When to Use
- Starting a new microservice or handler
- Adding new database tables or message events
- Any feature that touches multiple services
- When someone says "I want to build [X]"
Primary Goal
Zero ambiguity in the output. The requirements doc should be so precise that autonomous development can execute it without asking questions.
Step 0: Load Context
Before asking any questions:
- Read the project's CLAUDE.md for architecture patterns and conventions
- Read
docs/service-map.md(or equivalent) for existing services and responsibilities - Read
REQUIREMENTS-TEMPLATE.mdin this skill's directory for the output format - Understand existing EVENT_TYPES, database tables, and service boundaries
Discovery Rounds
Round 1: Domain & Scope
Ask ALL of these. Do NOT proceed until answered:
- What problem does this solve? (1-2 sentences, business context)
- Who or what triggers this? (User action / scheduled / event from another service / external webhook)
- What is the expected output/effect? (Data created / event published / state changed / notification sent)
- Which existing service is this most similar to? (This becomes the reference implementation)
- Which repository does this belong in? (Suggest one based on the description, confirm with user)
After answers: Summarize your understanding. Ask "Is this accurate?"
Round 2: Data & Integration
- What data does this need to READ? (Which tables, which fields)
- What NEW data does this create? (New tables? New columns?)
- Which existing events does it CONSUME? (From the event catalog)
- What NEW events should it PUBLISH? (Name them, describe payload structure)
- External API integrations? (Remind: one integration point per external service)
- New database access methods needed? (Check what already exists)
CHALLENGE vague answers. If someone says "it needs price data," ask: "Live price from the exchange, or cached market data, or calculated NAV?"
Round 3: Business Rules & Edge Cases
- Core business rules? (The unique logic)
- Failure handling for each failure mode:
- Database write fails → retry? skip? alert?
- External API timeout → fallback? cached data?
- Missing upstream data → reject? defaults? log warning?
- Idempotency? (Can the handler safely process the same event twice?)
- Timing/scheduling? (Cron? Interval? Which timezone?)
- Financial precision? (Touches money? Rounding direction?)
- Concurrency? (Multiple instances? Locking needed?)
Round 4: Acceptance & Testing
- What does "done" look like? (Observable outcomes, not "it works")
- Integration test scenarios (3-5 scenarios in this format):
TRIGGER: [what you do to start the test — emit event / call API / insert DB row] VERIFY: [what you check — DB state / logs / error table / downstream event] EXPECT: [specific expected values] - Performance requirements? (Latency, throughput)
- Environment? (Dev first, then prod? Straight to prod?)
- Dependencies? (What must exist first?)
- Out of scope? (What this feature does NOT do)
Challenge Rules
You MUST push back on vague requirements:
| Vague | Challenge With |
| "Handle errors gracefully" | "Which errors? What recovery action for each?" |
| "Store the data" | "Which table? Columns? Who writes? Who reads?" |
| "Notify the user" | "Email/push/in-app? Template? Trigger condition?" |
| "It should be fast" | "Latency target in ms? Under what load?" |
| "Keep it secure" | "Auth method? Which middleware? Rate limiting?" |
Output: Requirements Document
After all 4 rounds, generate the complete document. Structure:
## 1. Context
- Problem statement, business value, reference implementation
## 2. Data Model
- Exact SQL (CREATE TABLE, indexes)
- Table ownership (who writes, who reads)
- New database access methods (typed signatures)
## 3. Message Contracts
- New events with Zod schemas (V1 naming)
- Queue definitions (service.event-type pattern)
- Event flow diagram (ASCII)
- Existing events consumed/published
## 4. Handlers
- For each handler:
- Trigger (event type / cron / HTTP)
- Input type
- Step-by-step logic
- Output (event published)
- Error handling
- Idempotency strategy
## 5. HTTP Endpoints (if any)
- Route, method, auth, request/response schemas
## 6. Integration Test Scenarios
- For each scenario:
- TRIGGER: how to initiate (emit event, call API, insert row)
- VERIFY: what to check (DB query, log search, error table)
- EXPECT: specific expected values
## 7. Configuration
- Environment variables
- Runtime config entries
## 8. Deployment
- Port, health check, Dockerfile, app spec
## 9. Definition of Done
- Measurable checklist (not "it works")
## 10. Out of Scope
- Explicit exclusions to prevent scope creepSave to: docs/requirements/[feature-name].md
Quality Checks
Before presenting:
- Every table has an owner service
- Every handler has trigger, input, output, error handling
- Test scenarios use TRIGGER/VERIFY/EXPECT format (not unit test Given/When/Then)
- No VARCHAR — all TEXT
- Events use Zod schemas with V1 naming
- Reference implementation identified
- Definition of Done has verifiable items
- Out of Scope prevents obvious creep
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

