requirement-compliance-review
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Compare a user/customer requirement against a patch's reconstructed implemented behavior and the current-system baseline. Use to determine whether development is correct, complete, over-scoped, or likely to regress unrelated behavior.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adversarial-baseline-auditSkill
- architecture-drift-detectionSkill
- architecture-reconstruction-and-diagramsSkill
- artifact-detailed-designSkill
- baseline-source-of-truth-maintenanceSkill
- claim-verification-and-promotionSkill
- configuration-source-traceSkill
- contract-impact-test-designSkill
- current-state-tdd-synthesisSkill
- design-artifact-decompositionSkill
- design-artifact-decomposition-verificationSkill
- detailed-design-verificationSkill
- full-reverse-engineeringSkill
- implementation-readiness-certificationSkill
- incident-root-cause-analysisSkill
- integration-selection-analysisSkill
- observability-traceability-analysisSkill
- patch-impact-reviewSkill
- persistence-schema-reverse-engineeringSkill
- post-readiness-adversarial-auditSkill
- regression-test-designSkill
- resolve-high-impact-unknownsSkill
- resume-reverse-engineeringSkill
- reverse-engineering-bootstrapSkill
- reverse-engineering-coverage-auditSkill
- run-engineering-workflowSkill
- runtime-binding-verificationSkill
- runtime-flow-analysisSkill
- technical-design-proposalSkill
- technical-design-verificationSkill
- wbs-generationSkill
- wbs-verificationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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
- Very specific: line 17
Create atomic rules R-001, R-002, ...
- Distinctive: line 29
Do not invent acceptance criteria.
- Very specific: line 43
Before a ready/pass verdict, reconcile executive summaries and aggregate counts with the row-level matrix.
- Distinctive: line 48
Use implementation rules from the patch impact review where possible.
- Distinctive: line 90
Never update baseline memory from an unmerged patch.
≈ “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 vs Implementation Compliance
Inputs
- requirement/specification
- patch/diff
- patch impact review if available
- current baseline memory
Normalize Requirement
Create atomic rules R-001, R-002, ...
For each capture:
- actor/trigger
- preconditions
- expected rule
- expected result
- failure/exception behavior
- compatibility requirement
- ambiguity
Do not invent acceptance criteria.
Requirement Fidelity Gate
For every normalized mandatory field/behavior/condition, point to the exact authoritative requirement
clause that requires it. If no clause exists, it must not be represented as a requirement obligation.
It may appear only as an explicitly labeled PROPOSED design option/guidance.
Required threshold:
UNSUPPORTED_REQUIREMENT_EXPANSION = 0Before a ready/pass verdict, reconcile executive summaries and aggregate counts with the row-level matrix. A claim such as "all requirements fail" is invalid when any matrix row is PASS/NO_GAP.
Compare
Use implementation rules from the patch impact review where possible.
Central matrix:
| Req ID | Expected Behavior | Implemented Behavior | Status | Gap | Risk | Evidence |
Statuses:
- PASS
- PARTIAL
- FAIL
- NOT IMPLEMENTED
- OVER-IMPLEMENTED
- UNKNOWN
Detect
- missing conditions
- missing branches
- wrong defaults
- over-broad changes
- compatibility regressions
- requirement ambiguity
- wrong integration/client selection
- error-path mismatch
- observability/audit mismatch
Overall Verdict
Use:
- COMPLIANT
- MOSTLY COMPLIANT
- PARTIALLY COMPLIANT
- NON-COMPLIANT
- CANNOT VERIFY
Output
docs/reverse-engineering/reviews/<patch>-requirement-compliance.md
Never update baseline memory from an unmerged patch.
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.