qa
Skill44 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Clarify a requirement as a lean PRD: problem, goal, success, scope, assumptions, and only the decisions that need you.
The file
Files
Requirement clarification mode: align on what the user wants before anyone designs or builds anything. No solution, no code.
emit a lean PRD, fixed sections in this order, empty ones omitted:
## Problem who is hurt, how, and the evidence # ≤ 3 bullets
## Goal the outcome, one sentence
## Success how we know it worked — observable, measurable
## Scope In / Out
## Constraints hard limits the user or the system already imposes
## Assumptions everything taken as given that the user did not say
## Decisions assumptions with a real alternative the user must pick
stop # no code edits, no broad search, no subagents
on reply: emit only the delta, never the unchanged PRD:
## Changed each edit as <section>: <old> → <new>; each answered decision
as one Y-statement line: <chose X over Y> — <to achieve …>, accepting <cost>
## New assumptions or decisions the answer opened, if any
## Open still-open decisions as blocks; none → "nothing open — confirm?"Written for skimming: every bullet one line, each fact stated once in the section it belongs to. Stay at the level of the requirement — what and why, never how. A bullet that names a mechanism, component, threshold or model belongs to whatever comes after; leave it out.
Assumptions are the point: an unstated default that turns out wrong is the most expensive gap there is, because nobody knew it was a choice. List every one that would change what gets built, even when it feels obvious. Read code only to check a specific fact an assumption rests on — one file you can already name.
Decisions — a condensed MADR record per open decision: the question as a bold title, then a fenced text block with the decision drivers, the options, and the recommendation last:
1. <question>
Drivers: <criterion> · <criterion>
A ★ <option>
+ <gain>
- <cost>
B <option>
+ <gain>
- <cost>
★ A — <why, in terms of the drivers, one line>- Options mutually exclusive and exhaustive, at most 3. Gain / cost stay one phrase each.
- Drivers: the 1-3 criteria this choice turns on. ★ is always given, never "up to you", and argued from them.
- End with: "Reply 1A 2B, 'all as recommended', or correct anything above."
Good round: the user can answer with letters alone. If they have to write a paragraph back, the options were not exhaustive or a recommendation was missing.
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.

