agentleFS
Sign inStart free
QuirkybrainQuirkybrain/claude-code-swe-framework/.claude/skills/traceability/SKILL.md

traceability

Skill1 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub

Create, validate, and update bidirectional links from Requirements through design, architecture, APIs/Components, tasks, code, and tests. Use after Artifact changes, planning, implementation, testing, verification, or Change Impact.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run whenever traceable Artifacts are created/changed, before verification/Stage Gate, or when impact analysis lacks reliable links.

    line 14
  2. Very specific:

    Add optional use-case/domain/model/ADR/review/release links where they reduce risk.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    Update links after Change Impact and preserve superseded history.

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    Use Reverse Engineering to recover rationale/structure, Clarification Gate for intent, and Change Impact for stale downstream links.

    line 63
  5. Distinctive:

    Stop when target-relevant links are current and gaps explicit, or when authority/evidence blocks a reliable relationship.

    line 67

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Traceability

Purpose

Make it possible to determine what implements and tests each Requirement, why code exists, and what a change affects.

Trigger

Run whenever traceable Artifacts are created/changed, before verification/Stage Gate, or when impact analysis lacks reliable links.

Inputs

  • Artifact Registry and current revisions.
  • Requirements/use cases, design/models, architecture/ADRs, API/Contracts, Components, tasks, code, tests, findings, and release evidence.
  • Workflow Level, target, and existing trace links.

Prerequisites

  • Each managed item has a stable ID or durable code/path reference.
  • Distinguish current revisions from superseded history.

Procedure

  1. Define target-relevant chain: Requirement → Design → Architecture → API/Component → Task → Code → Test.
  2. Add optional use-case/domain/model/ADR/review/release links where they reduce risk.
  3. Walk each Requirement forward and record implementation and verification coverage.
  4. Walk each changed code/test item backward to a Requirement, decision, defect, maintenance rationale, or explicit technical necessity.
  5. Validate link revisions and semantics; a path mention alone is not proof of satisfaction.
  6. Mark coverage as complete, partial, missing, stale, conflicting, or not applicable with rationale.
  7. Detect Requirements without design/implementation/tests, code without rationale, orphan tests, and model/code drift.
  8. Update links after Change Impact and preserve superseded history.
  9. Scale detail to Workflow Level while retaining enough evidence for the current target.

Decision Rules

  • Traceability is bidirectional.
  • One Requirement may map to many Components/tests; one code item may satisfy multiple justified concerns.
  • Inferred Requirements retain INFERRED confidence in trace links.
  • A passing test link does not prove Requirement completeness by itself.
  • Lightweight tasks may use compact change-to-acceptance/test links; Strict work may require a formal matrix.

Outputs

  • Updated traceability matrix/links with IDs, revisions, relationship, status, and evidence.
  • Forward/backward coverage summary.
  • Orphan, missing, stale, conflicting, and unverified link findings.
  • Inputs for Change Impact and System Verification.

Failure Cases

  • IDs/revisions are unstable or missing.
  • Source code is generated or shared with ambiguous ownership.
  • Requirements and observed behavior conflict.
  • Link volume exceeds Process Budget without target prioritization.

Escalation

Use Reverse Engineering to recover rationale/structure, Clarification Gate for intent, and Change Impact for stale downstream links. Escalate unjustified code rather than inventing a Requirement.

Stop Conditions

Stop when target-relevant links are current and gaps explicit, or when authority/evidence blocks a reliable relationship. Do not claim coverage beyond evaluated scope.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free