requirement-convergence
Skill712 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Separates the outcome a change must produce from the requirements proposed to reach it, records what the user excluded, and bands cost from decision-relevant repository evidence. Use when a requirement enters a workflow, before design begins.
2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplateedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shinpr/codex-workflowstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate★ 23663% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- shinpr/codex-workflows★ 39same 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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-principlesSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- external-resource-contextSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- recipe-add-integration-testsSkill
- recipe-buildSkill
- recipe-designSkill
- recipe-diagnoseSkill
- recipe-front-adjustSkill
- recipe-front-buildSkill
- recipe-front-designSkill
- recipe-front-planSkill
- recipe-front-reviewSkill
- recipe-fullstack-buildSkill
- recipe-fullstack-implementSkill
- recipe-implementSkill
- recipe-planSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testing-principlesSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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 33
Run the hearing after scope analysis has produced the facts needed to judge the convergence fields.
- Distinctive: line 73
Read the convergence record from the prompt.
- Very specific: line 74
Treat nonGoals as excluded from the current change and desired-future requirements as buildable scope.
- Very specific: line 75
Treat a weak-but-explicit field as a recorded open question rather than a settled decision.
≈ “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
Requirement Convergence
Purpose
Requirements arrive bloated, ambiguous, or aimed at the wrong outcome. A capable model reconciles all three into a coherent plan and builds it faithfully — delivering exactly what was asked for when what was asked for was wrong.
This skill converges what to build. How to build it, and which documents the change requires, come after the what.
Convergence Fields
| Field | Pass condition |
outcome | One observable result. A requirement that does not serve it is excess. |
requirements[] | Every build-relevant item labeled current-state or desired-future. |
nonGoals[] | Authored by the user, or the user stated there are none. |
cost | A band with the repository and lifecycle evidence that places it, plus the unknowns that remain. |
cost is a rough band, not the effort estimate a work plan schedules against; requirements cannot support person-days. Its unknowns carry more decision weight than its size.
Classify from the user's own retained wording, not from an analyzer's restatement of it: wording that asks for an evaluation, describes a speculative idea, or suggests a mechanism stays in active convergence context as a judgment-only candidate. requirements[] and durable documents receive a candidate only after explicit user confirmation.
Each field carries a readiness label: ready, weak, or weak-but-explicit (weak, and the user agreed to leave it unresolved). Only the user sets weak-but-explicit. Requirements are converged when every applicable field is ready or weak-but-explicit.
Judgment rules per field: references/criteria.md.
Hearing Protocol
Run the hearing after scope analysis has produced the facts needed to judge the convergence fields. The workflow using this skill owns the interaction method and routing; this skill defines the hearing content and pass conditions.
Register these steps before starting and record each step's evidence as it completes:
| Step | Action | Completion evidence |
| 1 | Render the Scope Confirmation below, asking only about the fields below ready | Each fact cites the analysis output it came from, and User decisions holds one question per field below ready |
| 2 | Record each answer as that field's value | The value uses wording the user supplied, not wording the hearing offered |
| 3 | Re-ask once when a recorded value still fails its pass condition, then mark the field weak-but-explicit when the user agrees to leave the second answer as it stands | Two recorded answers, or the user's agreement to stop |
| 4 | Hand the record to the step that judges the fields | An updated record returned from that step |
Step 2's evidence is what keeps the hearing reviewable: a value restating the hearing's own candidates fails it, so the user's judgment survives however the question was put.
Scope Confirmation
Render this shape at every requirements confirmation stop, whether or not the hearing ran, using only what can change the user's requirement decision or the workflow route.
| Section | Contents |
| User-selected scope | The requirements and exclusions the user has already selected, in the user's wording |
| Decision evidence | Each material observed fact with its source, followed by what that fact can change about scope, outcome, or cost |
| User decisions | One question per convergence field below ready (Hearing Protocol Step 1), followed by the scope, outcome, or cost effects of its materially different answers |
| Workflow | Rough cost band with the unknowns that remain, Structural Scale, and the selected document and workflow route |
Keeping the first three sections separate is what makes the decision informable: merged, the reader cannot tell which line is the user's own selection, which is a repository observation, and which is still open.
Only an explicit user answer moves an item from User decisions into User-selected scope. Because Step 2 records the user's own wording, pose each open decision as a question and let the user supply its answer. The orchestrator owns Workflow and presents it as a selected route.
Storage Protocol
| Carrier | Holds | Written by |
| The convergence record in the judging step's output | Every field with its readiness label | The judging step |
PRD Success Criteria and Future / Out of Scope | outcome; user-authored nonGoals | The PRD production step |
Design Doc Requirement Convergence | The same when no PRD exists, and the fields left weak-but-explicit in every case | The Design Doc production step |
A flow that produces neither document carries the record in its own context to the next step.
Reference Protocol (For Downstream Consumers)
- Read the convergence record from the prompt.
- Treat
nonGoalsas excluded from the current change anddesired-futurerequirements as buildable scope. Evaluation requests, speculative ideas, prescribed mechanisms, and agent-proposed capabilities that were not promoted create no downstream obligation; an accepted ADR may retain evaluated options as decision history. - Treat a
weak-but-explicitfield as a recorded open question rather than a settled decision. When work depends on it, return the missing decision and its effect to the owning workflow.
Quality Checklist
- Scope facts were presented before questions were asked
nonGoalscame from the user, or the user stated there are none- Every applicable field is
ready, orweak-but-explicitby the user's agreement
References
- references/criteria.md — judgment rules per field, cost inputs, challenge intensity, solution-in-disguise test
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.

