requirements-engineering
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill to turn vague, ambiguous, or "lousy" requirements into precise, testable specifications BEFORE any code is written -- even when the user never says "BDD", "use case", or "acceptance criteria". Trigger when someone has a half-baked feature idea, an under-specified ticket, or a business brief that's "open to interpretation" and needs it pinned down: clarifying questions, As-a/I-want/So-that narratives, Given/When/Then acceptance criteria, use cases (data inputs, happy path, error and cancel courses), model-spec tables, request/response payload contracts, flowcharts, and module-dependency diagrams. This is the SPECIFICATION altitude -- WHAT to build and the contracts to honor. Hand off the implementation to the iOS architecture skill (composition root, layers, packages, concurrency), SwiftUI view code, and Swift Testing syntax -- do NOT use this skill to write or refactor that code, only to define what it must satisfy.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thistleknot/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jasonkneen/kirotheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- zeeshanhanif/agentic-sdlc-kittheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
- muxammadmamajonov/dot-claudetheir own version, first seen Jul 6, 2026
- caseyng/Claude-skillstheir own version, first seen May 22, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- jasonkneen/kiro★ 753same name
- zeeshanhanif/agentic-sdlc-kit★ 17same name
- caseyng/Claude-skills★ 1same name
- muxammadmamajonov/dot-claude★ 0same name
- thistleknot/skills★ 0same 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.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
13
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 25
When this skill is active, follow these rules strictly:
- Very specific: line 57
BDD's value is the conversation, not the Gherkin: If you wrote Given/When/Then scenarios without asking a single clarifying question, you …
- Distinctive: line 63
Artifact count follows behavior, not a quota: Don't pad an online-only feature with offline narratives and Cancel courses to "complete the …
- Distinctive: line 98
Do not accept "As a user, I want X, So I can X" — always specify concrete user types
- Distinctive: line 99
Do not write use cases without a Data section listing all inputs
- Distinctive: line 100
Do not omit Cancel courses for operations involving network or async work
- Distinctive: line 101
Do not mix domain terms — if BDD says "image feed", use case must say "image feed", not "feed items"
- Distinctive: line 102
Do not create architecture diagrams without showing module dependencies and protocol boundaries
- Distinctive: line 103
Do not treat requirements as a one-time document — they evolve with the code
- Distinctive: line 104
Do not include implementation details in BDD narratives — keep them behavioral
- Distinctive: line 105
Do not describe models as prose — use Property/Type tables
- Distinctive: line 111
When reviewing a feature specification:
- Distinctive: line 113
Every BDD narrative specifies a concrete user type (not just "user")
- Very specific: line 114
Every acceptance criterion has Given/When/Then with specific preconditions
- Distinctive: line 115
Every use case has Data, Primary course, and at least one Error course
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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 Engineering
Why this skill exists. Good architecture is a byproduct of good requirements — you do not design it directly, you clarify the requirements until the modules, boundaries, and contracts they imply become obvious. This skill produces the WHAT (the specification and the contracts to honor); the ios-architecture-expert skill turns it into the HOW. Every artifact here starts from a conversation that eliminates assumptions — see
references/clarifying-questions.md.
Agent Behavior Contract
When this skill is active, follow these rules strictly:
- Include the artifacts the feature warrants — the full set (BDD Narrative, Acceptance Criteria, Use Cases, Model Specs, Payload Contract, Flowchart, Architecture Diagram) for a non-trivial networked feature, but omit ones that don't apply: an online-only feature needs no offline narrative, cache use case, or Cancel course; a feature reusing a model needs no new Model Spec. The architecture diagram is one shared app-level graph, not one per feature.
- Never accept vague requirements without asking clarifying questions first — Who are the user types? What happens offline? What are the error cases?
- Use domain-specific language consistently across all artifacts — if the domain says "image feed" not "feed items", use "image feed" everywhere.
- Every use case must have a Data section listing ALL inputs, a Primary course, at least one Error course, and a Cancel course where applicable.
- Model Specs must use Property/Type tables — not prose descriptions.
- Payload Contracts must show HTTP method, path, status code, and example JSON — including optional fields demonstrated by omission.
- Requirements are living specifications — iterate and refine as understanding evolves, do not treat as one-time documents.
Requirements Diagnostic Table
| Symptom | First check | Smallest fix | Deep dive |
| Requirement is "susceptible to personal interpretation" | Missing user types / scenarios | Ask clarifying questions, split into narratives | references/clarifying-questions.md |
| Jumped straight to artifacts without asking anything | Assumptions encoded as requirements | Run the lousy-ticket teardown first | references/clarifying-questions.md |
| BDD scenario covers only happy path | Missing error/offline/edge cases | Add error courses and cancellation | references/use-cases.md |
| Use case mixes multiple responsibilities | Separation of concerns | Extract into focused use cases (Load vs Validate vs Cache) | references/use-cases.md |
| No data contract between frontend and backend | Missing model specs / payload | Add Property/Type table + JSON contract | references/model-specs-and-contracts.md |
| Domain terms inconsistent across docs | Language alignment gap | Audit and rename terms consistently | references/domain-language.md |
| Diagram shows only happy path | Missing error flows | Add error/fallback branches | references/diagrams.md |
| Architecture diagram is generic boxes | Missing module dependencies | Show actual module dependency graph | references/diagrams.md |
| No traceability from requirements to code | Missing artifact mapping | Map BDD -> tests, use cases -> classes | references/feature-specification-workflow.md |
| A UX/design question can't be settled by discussion | It needs feedback, not another scenario | Build a throwaway prototype with realistic hard-case data | references/feature-specification-workflow.md |
| "We don't have time to write specs" | What the clarification actually buys the team | Name the returns — estimation, delegation, less rework | references/clarifying-questions.md |
Gotchas
- BDD's value is the conversation, not the Gherkin. If you wrote Given/When/Then scenarios without asking a single clarifying question, you almost certainly encoded your own assumptions. Crush the assumptions first — What is a "feed"? What does "load" mean? From where? See
references/clarifying-questions.md. - Dependency-arrow notation carries two facts, not one. Head fill = "is-a/conforms-to" (open) vs. "depends-on" (filled); line style on a filled head = strong (solid, a stored
let) vs. weak (dashed, a method parameter). Four meanings, easy to get wrong — always include a legend. Seereferences/diagrams.md. - A query that mutates state is the smell. Load is a side-effect-free query; deleting the cache is a command — split them (CQS). The case study briefly put a delete on the Load path, then extracted
Validate Cache. Seereferences/use-cases.md. - Collection-empty ≠ single-resource-empty. An empty/expired collection cache is an empty success ("delivers no images"); an empty single keyed resource (image data by URL) is a not-found error.
- Optionality is shown by omission, not prose. In payload-contract JSON, include the optional field in some example items and omit it from others — never write "(optional)" only in prose or use
null. - The canonical domain term is the domain experts' word, not the team's preference (ubiquitous language). "Images" replaced "Items" because that's what the experts call them.
- Artifact count follows behavior, not a quota. Don't pad an online-only feature with offline narratives and Cancel courses to "complete the seven".
Feature Specification Artifacts
A feature draws from this catalog of artifacts — use the ones its behavior warrants (the full set for a non-trivial networked feature; fewer for online-only or model-reusing features):
| # | Artifact | Purpose | Template |
| 1 | BDD Narrative | Define who, what, why per user type | references/bdd-narratives.md |
| 2 | Acceptance Criteria | Given/When/Then scenarios | references/bdd-narratives.md |
| 3 | Use Cases | Step-by-step system behavior (Data/Primary/Error/Cancel) | references/use-cases.md |
| 4 | Model Specs | Property/Type tables for domain entities | references/model-specs-and-contracts.md |
| 5 | Payload Contract | HTTP method + path + response JSON | references/model-specs-and-contracts.md |
| 6 | Flowchart | Decision flow with error branches | references/diagrams.md |
| 7 | Architecture Diagram | Module dependency graph | references/diagrams.md |
The 6-Step Process
- Identify — Recognize vague requirements ("susceptible to personal interpretation")
- Clarify — Run the lousy-ticket teardown; ask Who / What / Where / When / Why / How to eliminate assumptions ->
references/clarifying-questions.md - Specify BDD — Write narratives and acceptance criteria ->
references/bdd-narratives.md - Define Use Cases — Write procedural steps with cancel courses ->
references/use-cases.md - Model & Contract — Create model specs and payload contracts ->
references/model-specs-and-contracts.md - Visualize & Document — Generate diagrams, compile feature spec ->
references/diagrams.md,references/feature-specification-workflow.md
End-to-end guide: feature-specification-workflow.md
Guardrails
- Do not accept "As a user, I want X, So I can X" — always specify concrete user types
- Do not write use cases without a Data section listing all inputs
- Do not omit Cancel courses for operations involving network or async work
- Do not mix domain terms — if BDD says "image feed", use case must say "image feed", not "feed items"
- Do not create architecture diagrams without showing module dependencies and protocol boundaries
- Do not treat requirements as a one-time document — they evolve with the code
- Do not include implementation details in BDD narratives — keep them behavioral
- Do not describe models as prose — use Property/Type tables
Verification Checklist
When reviewing a feature specification:
- Every BDD narrative specifies a concrete user type (not just "user")
- Every acceptance criterion has Given/When/Then with specific preconditions
- Every use case has Data, Primary course, and at least one Error course
- Cancel courses exist for all cancellable operations
- Model Specs have Property/Type tables for every domain entity
- Payload Contract shows HTTP method, path, status code, and example JSON
- Flowchart includes error/fallback branches (not just happy path)
- Architecture diagram shows module dependencies (not generic boxes)
- Domain terminology is consistent across every artifact
- Feature specification is self-contained (could be understood independently)
Reference Router
Open the smallest reference that matches the question:
- Clarification
- clarifying-questions.md — lousy-ticket teardown, question bank, answer-to-artifact mapping, BDD-as-conversation
- Narratives & Criteria
- bdd-narratives.md — BDD stories, user narratives, acceptance criteria, scenario patterns
- System Behavior
- use-cases.md — use case structure, courses, separation of concerns
- Data Contracts
- model-specs-and-contracts.md — model specs, payload contracts, JSON examples
- Visual Communication
- diagrams.md — flowcharts, architecture, sequence, state diagrams
- Domain Consistency
- domain-language.md — terminology alignment, renaming patterns
- Workflow
- feature-specification-workflow.md — end-to-end feature spec, traceability, prototyping to validate a requirement
- Worked example
- worked-example.md — a complete, assembled requirements set for a two-feature system: every artifact type in context. Read it when you need to see the target output at full fidelity, not one format at a time.
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.

