requirement-convergence
Skill39 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub
Converges future-state requirements around outcome, exclusions, and rough cost. Use when users ask 'do we need this?', 'how far should we go?', or request a feature or scope change.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplatetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shinpr/claude-code-workflowstheir own version, first seen Mar 23, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- shinpr/claude-code-workflows★ 712same name
- shinpr/ai-coding-project-boilerplate★ 236same 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-development-guideSkill
- coding-rulesSkill
- 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-outcome-watchSkill
- recipe-planSkill
- recipe-prepare-implementationSkill
- recipe-quality-profileSkill
- recipe-reverse-engineerSkill
- recipe-reviewSkill
- recipe-update-docSkill
- reviewee-judgmentSkill
- subagent-delegationSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 25
All four fields apply whenever Requirement Convergence runs.
- Distinctive: line 27
Use references/criteria.md to judge each field.
- Very specific: line 38
Ask only about fields below ready.
- Very specific: line 40
If an answer still fails its pass condition, ask once more.
- Distinctive: line 56
Read the convergence record from the current handoff or its durable document.
- Very specific: line 58
Keep weak-but-explicit fields visible as open questions.
≈ “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
Capable models can make an oversized or misdirected request technically coherent and implement it faithfully. Converge what is worth building before design decides how to build it.
Apply this skill to future-state Design Doc and implementation flows. Reverse-engineered/as-is documentation is outside its scope. Requirement Convergence decides what to build; design then decides the smallest sufficient way to build the converged scope.
Convergence Record
| Field | Pass condition |
outcome | One observable result. Every buildable requirement serves it. |
requirements[] | Every item is labeled current-state, desired-future, or speculative; buildable outcomes and explicit constraints trace to the user's request. Agent-selected means remain design choices. |
nonGoals[] | The user decided each exclusion or explicitly stated there are none. |
cost | A rough band with structural evidence and remaining unknowns. |
cost is an early requirements estimate, not a design or work-plan estimate. It is intentionally approximate: enough to challenge low-value scope without pretending shallow inspection can produce exact effort.
All four fields apply whenever Requirement Convergence runs. Each field has readiness ready, weak, or weak-but-explicit. Only the user can accept weak-but-explicit. The record is converged when every field is ready or weak-but-explicit.
Use references/criteria.md to judge each field.
Hearing Protocol
The orchestrator owns user interaction. It runs the hearing after an analysis step has produced scope facts.
The user decides product requirements and exclusions. Keep user-selected scope, observed facts, and agent inference separate because combining them makes agent interpretation indistinguishable from evidence and prevents an informed requirement decision.
At every requirements confirmation stop, render references/scope-confirmation.md. Only an explicit user answer moves a user-owned decision into user-selected scope.
- Escalate a requirement change only when concrete evidence shows the requested outcome cannot be achieved under the current conditions; name the failing premise, smallest change, and trade-off for the user's decision.
- Ask only about fields below
ready. - Record answers in the user's wording.
- If an answer still fails its pass condition, ask once more. Mark it
weak-but-explicitonly when the user agrees to proceed unresolved. - Re-judge the updated record before design begins. Re-run structural analysis only when an answer changes scope or cost evidence; otherwise the orchestrator applies the field's pass condition directly.
Storage Protocol
| Flow state | Carrier |
| Before persistence | Compact convergence object in the current handoff |
| PRD flow | Success Criteria holds outcome; the requirement boundary holds current requirements and user-decided nonGoals |
| Design Doc is the first durable document | Overview holds outcome; Requirement Boundary holds current requirements and user-decided nonGoals |
| Small direct implementation | Compact record embedded in the single task file's Governing Sources |
Persist weak-but-explicit outcome, current requirements, and non-goals as open questions. Keep speculative ideas, evaluation requests, prescribed mechanisms, and unselected candidates in the active convergence context only until the user selects scope; durable downstream documents contain the resulting current requirements and selected conclusions. cost is also ephemeral: use it for the requirements challenge, then let Structural Scale select the workflow and let design or planning produce later estimates. A Small-flow task file carries only outcome, current requirements, nonGoals, and their readiness in Governing Sources; its executor receives only that task path. Keep relevant user wording and explicit constraints in that existing requirement boundary, distinct from technical means. Downstream agents can then use the document path; before persistence or when provenance is missing, pass the relevant source excerpt.
Downstream Contract
- Read the convergence record from the current handoff or its durable document.
- Build the current change from user-selected
desired-futureoutcomes and keep recordednonGoalsoutside implementation. Technical means remain revisable after phase passage when user-required outcomes and explicit constraints remain satisfied; reconcile affected sources and proof. A speculative capability becomes buildable only when the user explicitly requests that scope change. - Keep
weak-but-explicitfields visible as open questions. Escalate only when the current work depends on resolving one.
Quality Checklist
- Scope facts and inferences are distinguished
- Every buildable requirement traces to the outcome
- Every non-goal is user-decided, and an empty
nonGoalslist reflects the user's explicit choice of none - Cost is approximate and evidence-backed
- Every field is
readyor user-approvedweak-but-explicit
References
- references/criteria.md — field judgments, cost bands, challenge intensity, and solution-in-disguise test
- references/scope-confirmation.md — requirements-stop output shape
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.

