Requirements Analysis
Analyze requirements against PigeonPod goals, current architecture, and implementation reality.
Follow This Workflow
- Restate the requirement in one short paragraph.
- Identify requirement type:
feature, enhancement, non-functional, integration, or migration.
- Define expected user value and business value.
- Read relevant project docs and code before giving conclusions.
- Use MCP/Context7 to confirm dependency or API constraints when external libraries/services are involved.
- Evaluate architecture fit, implementation complexity, data impact, and operational impact.
- Propose an implementation strategy with phased scope (
MVP, next, later).
- Output a decision with explicit rationale and open questions.
If the request is primarily about broken behavior, regressions, incorrect results, crashes, or root-cause analysis, use bug-analysis instead.
Read Local Context First
Prioritize these files for PigeonPod:
README.md
dev-docs/architecture/architecture-design-en.md
backend/src/main/resources/application.yml
backend/src/main/resources/db/migration/*.sql
- Relevant backend packages under
backend/src/main/java/top/asimov/pigeon/
- Relevant frontend routes/components under
frontend/src/pages/ and frontend/src/components/
Use fast discovery commands when needed:
rg -n "keyword|concept|module" backend/src/main/java frontend/src dev-docs README.md
rg --files dev-docs/
Use Context7 and MCP Deliberately
Use Context7/MCP when the requirement depends on framework/library/service behavior, version constraints, configuration, or integration details.
Typical triggers:
- Spring Boot/MyBatis-Plus/Sa-Token behavior or config decisions
- React/Mantine/React Router/i18next/Axios constraints
- YouTube Data API v3 limits/quotas/contract details
- RSS/Podcasting namespace compatibility details
- yt-dlp options/behavior and compatibility implications
Rules:
- Resolve library ID first, then query focused questions.
- Prefer primary/official docs and version-aware guidance.
- Distinguish facts from inference.
- If docs conflict with local implementation, prioritize local code reality and call out the gap.
Evaluate With These Dimensions
Assess each dimension explicitly:
- Value Alignment: Match with PigeonPod core goals (YouTube-to-podcast conversion, auto-sync/download, feed usability, operations simplicity).
- Feasibility: Confirm technical possibility with current stack and constraints.
- Architecture Fit: Check compatibility with backend service boundaries, scheduler/event flow, DB schema, and frontend route/state model.
- Data and Migration Impact: Identify new fields/tables, migration requirements, backfill, and backward compatibility.
- API and Contract Impact: Identify REST/RSS contract changes and consumer compatibility risks.
- Security and Compliance: Review auth, permissions, secrets/API keys, abuse vectors.
- Performance and Cost: Estimate queue pressure, I/O/download load, external API quota consumption, and storage growth.
- Testability and Operability: Define unit/integration/e2e coverage and monitoring/logging needs.
Produce This Output Format
Use this structure in final analysis:
## Requirement Summary
- User request:
- Requirement type:
- Assumptions:
## Value Assessment
- User value:
- Product/business value:
- Priority suggestion: High/Medium/Low
## Feasibility and Architecture Fit
- Current touchpoints:
- Proposed changes:
- Architecture fit verdict: Good/Partial/Poor
## Impact Analysis
- Backend impact:
- Frontend impact:
- Database/migration impact:
- External dependency impact:
- Security/performance/ops impact:
## Delivery Plan
- MVP scope:
- Non-MVP scope:
- Estimated complexity: S/M/L/XL
- Key risks and mitigations:
## Decision
- Recommendation: Proceed / Proceed with constraints / Defer / Reject
- Reasoning:
- Open questions:
Decision Heuristics
- Recommend
Proceed when value is clear, fit is good, and risk is manageable.
- Recommend
Proceed with constraints when value is high but scope/risk needs staged delivery.
- Recommend
Defer when value exists but prerequisites are missing.
- Recommend
Reject when requirement conflicts with core goals or creates disproportional cost/risk.
Quality Bar
Before finalizing, verify all checks:
- Base conclusions on repository evidence, not assumptions only.
- Confirm external-library/API claims through Context7/MCP when relevant.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and unknowns.
- Include at least one feasible implementation path.
- Include explicit tradeoffs and rollback/fallback considerations.
1---2name: requirements-analysis3description: Analyze product and technical requirements for the PigeonPod project with software engineering rigor. Use when users ask to evaluate a feature, enhancement, non-functional requirement, integration, or migration for value, feasibility, architecture fit, implementation impact, risk, delivery scope, or tradeoffs. Do not use for bug triage or root-cause analysis; use `bug-analysis` for bugfix-oriented work. Always inspect current repository docs and code first, then use MCP tools including Context7 to verify external library, framework, or API constraints before concluding.4---56# Requirements Analysis78Analyze requirements against PigeonPod goals, current architecture, and implementation reality.910## Follow This Workflow11121. Restate the requirement in one short paragraph.132. Identify requirement type: `feature`, `enhancement`, `non-functional`, `integration`, or `migration`.143. Define expected user value and business value.154. Read relevant project docs and code before giving conclusions.165. Use MCP/Context7 to confirm dependency or API constraints when external libraries/services are involved.176. Evaluate architecture fit, implementation complexity, data impact, and operational impact.187. Propose an implementation strategy with phased scope (`MVP`, `next`, `later`).198. Output a decision with explicit rationale and open questions.2021If the request is primarily about broken behavior, regressions, incorrect results, crashes, or root-cause analysis, use `bug-analysis` instead.2223## Read Local Context First2425Prioritize these files for PigeonPod:2627- `README.md`28- `dev-docs/architecture/architecture-design-en.md`29- `backend/src/main/resources/application.yml`30- `backend/src/main/resources/db/migration/*.sql`31- Relevant backend packages under `backend/src/main/java/top/asimov/pigeon/`32- Relevant frontend routes/components under `frontend/src/pages/` and `frontend/src/components/`3334Use fast discovery commands when needed:3536```bash37rg -n "keyword|concept|module" backend/src/main/java frontend/src dev-docs README.md38rg --files dev-docs/39```4041## Use Context7 and MCP Deliberately4243Use Context7/MCP when the requirement depends on framework/library/service behavior, version constraints, configuration, or integration details.4445Typical triggers:4647- Spring Boot/MyBatis-Plus/Sa-Token behavior or config decisions48- React/Mantine/React Router/i18next/Axios constraints49- YouTube Data API v3 limits/quotas/contract details50- RSS/Podcasting namespace compatibility details51- yt-dlp options/behavior and compatibility implications5253Rules:5455- Resolve library ID first, then query focused questions.56- Prefer primary/official docs and version-aware guidance.57- Distinguish facts from inference.58- If docs conflict with local implementation, prioritize local code reality and call out the gap.5960## Evaluate With These Dimensions6162Assess each dimension explicitly:63641. Value Alignment: Match with PigeonPod core goals (YouTube-to-podcast conversion, auto-sync/download, feed usability, operations simplicity).652. Feasibility: Confirm technical possibility with current stack and constraints.663. Architecture Fit: Check compatibility with backend service boundaries, scheduler/event flow, DB schema, and frontend route/state model.674. Data and Migration Impact: Identify new fields/tables, migration requirements, backfill, and backward compatibility.685. API and Contract Impact: Identify REST/RSS contract changes and consumer compatibility risks.696. Security and Compliance: Review auth, permissions, secrets/API keys, abuse vectors.707. Performance and Cost: Estimate queue pressure, I/O/download load, external API quota consumption, and storage growth.718. Testability and Operability: Define unit/integration/e2e coverage and monitoring/logging needs.7273## Produce This Output Format7475Use this structure in final analysis:7677```markdown78## Requirement Summary79- User request:80- Requirement type:81- Assumptions:8283## Value Assessment84- User value:85- Product/business value:86- Priority suggestion: High/Medium/Low8788## Feasibility and Architecture Fit89- Current touchpoints:90- Proposed changes:91- Architecture fit verdict: Good/Partial/Poor9293## Impact Analysis94- Backend impact:95- Frontend impact:96- Database/migration impact:97- External dependency impact:98- Security/performance/ops impact:99100## Delivery Plan101- MVP scope:102- Non-MVP scope:103- Estimated complexity: S/M/L/XL104- Key risks and mitigations:105106## Decision107- Recommendation: Proceed / Proceed with constraints / Defer / Reject108- Reasoning:109- Open questions:110```111112## Decision Heuristics113114- Recommend `Proceed` when value is clear, fit is good, and risk is manageable.115- Recommend `Proceed with constraints` when value is high but scope/risk needs staged delivery.116- Recommend `Defer` when value exists but prerequisites are missing.117- Recommend `Reject` when requirement conflicts with core goals or creates disproportional cost/risk.118119## Quality Bar120121Before finalizing, verify all checks:122123- Base conclusions on repository evidence, not assumptions only.124- Confirm external-library/API claims through Context7/MCP when relevant.125- Separate facts, assumptions, and unknowns.126- Include at least one feasible implementation path.127- Include explicit tradeoffs and rollback/fallback considerations.