elicit-requirements
Skill73 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Structured pre-feature requirements gathering. Run before writing any new feature or API endpoint to clarify scope, acceptance criteria, and technical constraints. Produces: a Requirements Summary (Problem | Scope | Stories | Acceptance Criteria | Out of Scope | Open Questions), presented to the user for confirmation BEFORE saving to a file, so requirements can be edited before they become reference for implementation.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- link7373/agentic-pmotheir own version, first seen Aug 9, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- link7373/agentic-pmo★ 1same 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.
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- memory/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- changelogSkill
- db-checkSkill
- deploy-checkSkill
- e2e-checkSkill
- load-sessionSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- register-projectSkill
- review-diffSkill
- review-fullSkill
- save-diarySkill
- save-sessionSkill
- scaffold-projectSkill
- self-auditSkill
- session-endSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- statusSkill
- tech-radarSkill
- test-checkSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Run this before writing any new feature to avoid scope creep, missed edge cases, and mid-implementation discoveries that force rewrites.
- Distinctive: line 90
After elicitation, produce a structured summary:
- Distinctive: line 120
After drafting the Requirements Summary, present it to the user in readable markdown and ask:
- Distinctive: line 124
Do NOT save until the user confirms (yes / save / proceed / looks good).
- Distinctive: line 126
Only after confirmation: save the requirements to a structured markdown file the user can reference during implementation.
≈ “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
Elicit Requirements: Structured Pre-Feature Clarification
Run this before writing any new feature to avoid scope creep, missed edge cases, and mid-implementation discoveries that force rewrites.
Elicitation Workflow
Work through these sections with the user. Ask grouped questions; do not ask one at a time.
1. Problem Statement
Ask:
- What problem are we solving, and for whom?
- What triggers this feature? (user action, external system push, scheduled job, webhook)
- What is the expected outcome when it works correctly?
- What is the expected behaviour when it fails?
2. User Roles and Stakeholders
Ask:
- Which user roles interact with this directly? (admin, developer, end user, external system)
- Which roles are indirectly affected? (e.g., reports they see change, notifications they receive)
- For integration features: which external system is involved? (identify from project context or ask)
3. Technical Constraints
For integration or API features, always clarify:
| Constraint | Questions |
| System | Which external system? |
| Direction | INBOUND (system pushes to us) or OUTBOUND (we push to system)? |
| Trigger | API call, webhook, scheduled job, file arrival? |
| Data format | JSON? XML? CSV? Other? |
| Auth | JWT? API key? mTLS? None (internal only)? |
| Error handling | Retry? Dead-letter queue? Alert? Silent fail? |
| Idempotency | Must duplicate calls be safe? |
4. Acceptance Criteria
For each piece of functionality, define:
- What HTTP endpoint (method + path) if applicable
- What the success response looks like (status code, key fields)
- What DB rows are created/updated and with which values
- What external calls are made (APIs, storage, queues)
- What happens on error (validation fail, external system down, duplicate)
Acceptance criteria must be verifiable without human judgement. If it says "looks good" or "works correctly" it is not an acceptance criterion.
Good: POST /api/v1/orders returns 202 with { "jobId": "<uuid>" } and creates job row with status='PENDING'
Bad: "The endpoint should handle the data correctly"
5. Out of Scope
Explicitly list what is NOT included in this feature to prevent scope creep:
- Which related endpoints are deferred?
- Which error scenarios are explicitly not handled yet?
- Which UI/dashboard elements are not part of this backend feature?
6. Dependencies and Ordering
- Does this feature depend on another feature being complete first?
- Does another feature depend on this being complete?
- What environment is needed to test? (running dev server, specific DB records, external system mock?)
Output
After elicitation, produce a structured summary:
## Requirements Summary: [Feature Name]
### Problem
[1-2 sentences]
### Scope
- System: [external system if applicable]
- Direction: [inbound/outbound]
- Trigger: [how it starts]
### Stories (ordered by dependency)
1. [Story 1 title]: [one-line description]
2. [Story 2 title]: [one-line description]
### Acceptance Criteria (per story)
**Story 1:**
- ...
### Out of Scope
- ...
### Open Questions
- ...Step 7: Confirmation Before Saving
After drafting the Requirements Summary, present it to the user in readable markdown and ask:
"Does this requirements summary look complete and accurate? Should I save it?"
Do NOT save until the user confirms (yes / save / proceed / looks good). If the user wants revisions, loop back to the relevant section, update the draft, and re-present.
Only after confirmation: save the requirements to a structured markdown file the user can reference during implementation.
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.

