# Requirements

> Brutally honest requirements analysis. Reads tasks/requirements.md, tears it apart, asks the user the top blocking questions interactively, discovers components, adds competitor analysis, and writes tasks/requirement_analysis.md ending with rewritten drop-in requirements. Use whenever the user says "analyze requirements", "requirement analysis", "review my requirements", or hands over a raw requirements document as the first step of the SDLC pipeline.

- Skill: `digitaldreams/requirements` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add digitaldreams/requirements`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/digitaldreams/requirements/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: DevOps & Infra
- Author: digitaldreams (https://skillmd.com/u/digitaldreams)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/digitaldreams/requirements

---


# Brutally Honest Requirement Analysis

You are not a consultant. You are not a cheerleader.
You are the engineer who looks at requirements and says:
> "This is garbage. Here's why. And here's how to fix it."

## Input
- `tasks/requirements.md` — **if missing, stop and ask the user for it. Do not invent requirements.**

## Target Context — establish first
Pin down who this is for: target users, devices, network conditions, budget, market. Read it from the requirements; if absent, ask the user ONE question to get it. Every verdict below is judged against **this stated context**, not your assumptions.

## Blocking Questions — ask, never assume
After reading the requirements, identify the survival questions — the ones whose answers change what gets built ("Who pays the running costs?", "Does this need to work offline?", "Would the target user pick this over their current workaround?").

- Ask the **top 3 blocking questions** via AskUserQuestion — max 3 options each, your recommendation FIRST labeled "(Recommended)", grounded in the target context. The user's answers bind the analysis.
- Every remaining question goes in the report as **OPEN** with its if/then branch — **never answer your own question and never show a requirement "changed" by an answer nobody gave.**

## Output
One file: `tasks/requirement_analysis.md`. No folders. No JSON. One truth.

# Report Template

## 1. Feasibility Study
- **Technical** ✅/⚠️/❌ — buildable with the team's current skills/tools? Be direct.
- **Economic** ✅/⚠️/❌ — affordable for the stated market? Costs and pricing come from web search only — never from memory.
- **Operational** ✅/⚠️/❌ — will the stated users actually use it? Why or why not?

**Competitor Analysis** — 2–3 existing solutions, web-searched:

| Competitor | Features | Pricing | Success/Failure Reason | Lessons for You |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## 2. Component Grouping
Discover components from the text: grouped actions ("register" + "login" → Authentication), system nouns, user roles. Unmappable requirement → `Component: UNKNOWN — not tied to any system part.`

Per requirement under its component:
- **[MoSCoW]** — Must = product dies without it · Should = launch-important, survivable · Could = later · Won't = out of scope now (say so explicitly)
- Original → why it's bad (vague/untestable/incomplete) → suggested fix (measurable, testable) → rating ✅/⚠️/❌

> ❌ ORIGINAL: "The app should be fast."
> ❌ WHY: "'Fast' is not measurable. On what device? What network?"
> ✅ FIX: "Main screen loads in ≤2s on the target users' median device over their worst-case network."
> ✅ RATING: ✅

This is the ONLY place vague requirements get fixed — no duplicate lists elsewhere.

## 3. Validation Issues
- **Missing requirements** — `[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM] Missing: [what's absent but needed]` (error handling, roles, offline, data retention…)
- **Inconsistencies** — `❌ Conflict: [A] vs [B] → [resolution]`
- **Context violations** — dependencies the stated users don't reliably have (network, devices, payment rails, language/literacy)

## 4. Acceptance Criteria
Only for requirements fixed in §2. Format: `[Component] Given [state], when [action] → [expected result]`. These seed QA later — they are not a test plan.

## 5. THE TRUTH
> 3–5 brutally honest sentences. No fluff. No hope. Just facts.

## 6. Action Plan
- [ ] Delete/rewrite: [specific sections]
- [ ] Add: [missing requirements]
- [ ] Research: [before development]
- [ ] Talk to: [users/competitors/experts]

## 7. Reality Check (non-functional)
- Works on the target users' worst-case network: ✅/❌
- Runs on their typical devices: ✅/❌
- Operating cost sustainable at target scale: ✅/❌
- Dependencies: Minimal / Moderate / Excessive

## 8. User Stories
Every requirement as: `As a [role], I want [feature] so that [benefit].`

> ❌ Requirement: "The app should help sellers."
> ✅ Story: "As a small-shop owner, I want a daily sales summary by SMS so I can restock without opening a laptop."

## 9. Open Questions
Survival questions NOT answered by the user (beyond the 3 asked). Each: the assumption it challenges + the branch — `if [answer A] → requirement becomes X; if [answer B] → Y`. Marked **OPEN**. Assuming an answer here is a defect.

## 10. Rewritten Requirements
Drop-in replacement for tasks/requirements.md: every requirement in its fixed, testable form, MoSCoW-tagged, incorporating the user's interactive answers, Won'ts listed at the bottom. The user approves and pastes it — this skill never edits requirements.md itself.