agentleFS
agent-ixagent-ix/spec-skills/spec-integrity-analysis/SKILL.md

spec-integrity-analysis

Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Perform quality gate analysis on ISO-style specifications to ensure completeness, consistency, and atomicity.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify every User Story (US) maps to >= 1 Functional/System Requirement (FR/SR).

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify every FR/SR maps to >= 1 Stakeholder Requirement (StR).

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify every FR/SR maps to >= 1 verification method.

    line 15
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify every NFR is explicitly scoped and referenced by affected FR/SR.

    line 16
  5. Distinctive:

    Rule: No requirement may have more than one valid interpretation.

    line 23
  6. Very specific:

    Ensure each FR/SR/StR defines a *single* behavior/obligation.

    line 40
  7. Distinctive:

    Ensure behavior is externally observable.

    line 41
  8. Distinctive:

    Ensure behavior is verifiable by test, inspection, analysis, or demonstration.

    line 42
  9. Very specific:

    Before finalizing, verify against spec-failure-domain-analysis:

    line 46

≈ “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

Specification Integrity Analysis

This skill performs a quality gate analysis on specifications (User Stories, FR/SR, StR, NFR) before task generation.

Process

  1. Completeness Analysis:
    • Verify every User Story (US) maps to >= 1 Functional/System Requirement (FR/SR).
    • Verify every FR/SR maps to >= 1 Stakeholder Requirement (StR).
    • Verify every FR/SR maps to >= 1 verification method.
    • Verify every NFR is explicitly scoped and referenced by affected FR/SR.
    • Deliverable: Traceability matrix (US -> FR/SR -> StR -> Verification).
  2. Consistency & Conflict Analysis:

    • Identify contradictory constraints (e.g., latency vs security).
    • Identify duplicated requirements with different wording.
    • Identify hidden assumptions embedded in prose.
    • Rule: No requirement may have more than one valid interpretation.

    Hidden Assumption Probes

    For every FR, explicitly check for these patterns:

    PatternProbe Question
    FR delegates to an external CLI (git, gh, cookiecutter, etc.)Is there an NFR declaring the tool's minimum version, detection method, and user-facing error when absent?
    FR performs a lookup over multiple sources (registries, plugins, taps)Is there an explicit tie-breaking policy when two sources return the same key? (first-wins, last-wins, error, merge — must be a stated decision)
    FR calls an external API that returns paginated resultsDoes an NFR state whether full enumeration is required? If a cap is acceptable, is it documented as a known limitation?
    FR calls an external API in a loop or concurrentlyDoes an NFR declare max concurrency, rate limit awareness, retry policy, and that errors must surface (not be silently swallowed)?
    FR involves a scaffolding or generation commandAre both an interactive mode (human at terminal) and a scripted/CI mode explicitly specified with their flags?
    FR calls an authenticated external APIDoes an NFR declare the required auth scopes and mandate a clear user-facing error when scope is insufficient (not silent empty results)?
    FR depends on a package or service not yet implementedIs the interim fallback and eventual resolution chain documented? Is the hardcoded default traceable to a known stub?
  3. Atomicity & Testability Analysis:
    • Ensure each FR/SR/StR defines a single behavior/obligation.
    • Ensure behavior is externally observable.
    • Ensure behavior is verifiable by test, inspection, analysis, or demonstration.
    • Action: Flag non-testable requirements for rewriting or splitting.

Failure Domain Check

Before finalizing, verify against spec-failure-domain-analysis:

  • Extension failures, Identity keys, Evaluation purity, Topological robustness.

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.