# Requirements Gap Investigator

> Investigate a vague or incomplete feature request to surface unstated assumptions, missing constraints, and conflicting stakeholder signals before requirements are written. Use when a feature ask is ambiguous, underspecified, or conflicting; do not use to write a PRD, make product decisions, or evaluate an already-detailed spec.

- Skill: `khadir-syed/requirements-gap-investigator` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add khadir-syed/requirements-gap-investigator`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/khadir-syed/requirements-gap-investigator/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: khadir-syed (https://skillmd.com/u/khadir-syed)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/khadir-syed/requirements-gap-investigator

---


# Requirements Gap Investigator

Determine what is actually known, assumed, or missing about a feature request before anyone drafts requirements from it. Produce an evidence-backed gap report and stop before writing a PRD unless the user separately authorises that.

## Operating boundary

- Treat the task as investigation-only by default. Do not write a PRD, user story, spec, or requirements document.
- Do not decide product direction, prioritise the feature, or resolve a stakeholder conflict on the user's behalf — surface it instead.
- Use only the request text, linked docs, and context the user supplies or that is directly available; do not invent stakeholder intent.
- Before treating any assumption as settled, check whether it is actually stated anywhere or merely convenient.

If the user explicitly asks for both the gap investigation and a drafted PRD in the same request, finish and report the gap investigation first, make the transition to drafting visible, and follow the host's approval requirements for the write itself.

## Investigation workflow

### 1. Frame the request

Record:

- the request as stated, in the requester's own words;
- who is asking and, if known, who else has a stake in the outcome;
- the problem the feature is meant to solve, if stated;
- any deadline or dependency mentioned; and
- any existing docs, tickets, or prior discussion referenced.

Ask only for missing information that blocks a useful investigation. Do not convert an unstated assumption into a stated requirement.

### 2. Establish what is actually known

For every important claim about the request, label it as:

- **Stated:** written down in the request or a linked document, in those words.
- **Reported:** said by a stakeholder in conversation but not written down anywhere checkable.
- **Inferred:** a conclusion drawn from precedent, similar features, or context — not stated by anyone.
- **Unknown:** not established by anything available.

Common gaps worth checking explicitly: who the feature is for, what "done" looks like, what is explicitly out of scope, how it should behave for edge cases (empty states, permissions, scale), and what happens to any existing behaviour it replaces.

### 3. Identify conflicts and gaps

Compare what different stated or reported sources say. Note any place where:

- two stakeholders describe the same feature differently;
- the stated goal and the stated scope don't obviously match;
- a constraint (timeline, platform, compliance) is mentioned once but not accounted for elsewhere; or
- success is not defined in any checkable way.

### 4. Compare interpretations

Where the request is genuinely ambiguous, list the plausible interpretations rather than picking one silently. For each interpretation, note what evidence supports it and what a requirements author would need to confirm before building on it.

### 5. Report and stop

Report:

- investigation status: clear enough to draft from, gaps identified, or too ambiguous to proceed;
- the gaps and conflicts found, each labelled stated/reported/inferred/unknown;
- competing interpretations, where they exist;
- what would need to be confirmed, and with whom, before writing requirements; and
- explicitly, that no PRD or spec has been drafted.

Stop after the report. Do not silently begin drafting requirements from the gaps you found.

## Stopping conditions

Stop and explain the boundary when:

- the gaps are identified well enough to answer the request;
- resolving a gap requires a decision only a named stakeholder can make;
- the request touches a scope, budget, or commitment decision beyond what was asked; or
- the available material is too thin to say anything useful beyond "this needs more input."

## Quality check

Before returning the report, confirm that:

- every gap or claim is labelled stated, reported, inferred, or unknown;
- no unstated assumption was treated as a settled requirement;
- conflicting stakeholder signals are presented as conflicts, not silently resolved; and
- the response does not draft requirements, a PRD, or a product decision.