spec-scope-boundary-analysis
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Define system boundaries and allocate responsibilities for ISO-style specifications.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- agent-ix/quoinedited, first seen Jun 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- agent-ix/quoin★ 2072% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- spec-app-reviewSkill
- spec-blueprintSkill
- spec-dependency-analysisSkill
- spec-evidence-analysisSkill
- spec-failure-domain-analysisSkill
- specifySkill
- spec-integrity-analysisSkill
- spec-matrixSkill
- spec-object-reviewSkill
- spec-reviewSkill
- spec-risk-complexity-analysisSkill
- spec-security-analysisSkill
- spec-to-planSkill
- spec-us-to-frSkill
- spec-write-frSkill
- spec-write-itSkill
- spec-write-nfrSkill
- spec-write-strSkill
- spec-write-usSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Distinctive: line 13
When a new external dependency or component is introduced.
- Very specific: line 83
Every FR/StR/NFR is assigned exactly one owning component and one responsibility class.
- Very specific: line 84
Every external dependency is marked assumed or guaranteed with a named contract.
≈ “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.
Files
Scope & Boundary Analysis
Define what the system owns, what it consumes from outside, and which component owns each requirement.
When to use
- Once the StR/FR set is stable but before tasking.
- When a new external dependency or component is introduced.
- During
spec-app-reviewfor application-type specs that span multiple components.
Process
- System Boundary Definition.
- Enumerate in-scope responsibilities (what this system guarantees).
- Enumerate external dependencies (what it consumes and trusts).
- For each dependency, mark whether its behavior is assumed (we don't verify it) or guaranteed (we verify via contract test).
Responsibility Allocation. For each FR/StR/NFR, assign:
- An owning component or subsystem.
- A responsibility class:
core— domain logic specific to this system.infrastructure— persistence, transport, scheduling, storage.cross-cutting— auth, logging, metrics, error handling, audit.
This step defines where work belongs, not how it is done.
- Produce the deliverable using the template below.
Deliverable template
Record output in spec/analysis/scope-boundary.md.
# Scope & Boundary Analysis
## System Context
```mermaid
flowchart LR
user([User])
ext1[(External: Identity Provider)]
ext2[(External: Audit Log Sink)]
subgraph SUT [System Under Spec]
api[API Gateway]
core[Core Service]
db[(Postgres)]
end
user --> api --> core --> db
core -->|assumed| ext1
core -->|guaranteed via contract test| ext2
```
## In-Scope Responsibilities
- Authenticate and authorize all inbound API requests.
- Persist domain entities X, Y, Z with the schema defined in FR-010..FR-012.
- Emit audit events on every state transition.
## External Dependencies
| Dependency | Type | Assumed or Guaranteed | Contract |
|------------|------|------------------------|----------|
| Identity Provider | OIDC | Assumed | Provider's published spec |
| Audit Log Sink | HTTP | Guaranteed | IT-005 contract test |
## Responsibility Allocation
| Requirement | Owning Component | Class |
|-------------|------------------|-------|
| FR-001 (auth middleware) | API Gateway | cross-cutting |
| FR-010 (user entity) | Core Service | core |
| FR-020 (postgres migration) | Core Service | infrastructure |
| NFR-003 (request log) | API Gateway | cross-cutting |Acceptance Criteria
- Every FR/StR/NFR is assigned exactly one owning component and one responsibility class.
- Every external dependency is marked
assumedorguaranteedwith a named contract. - The system context diagram shows every external actor named in the spec.
- No "TBD" entries in the allocation table.
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.

