Problem Based Srs

Problem-Based SRS

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 RFC 2119 RFC 8174 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Orchestrate requirements engineering using the Problem-Based SRS methodology (Gorski & Stadzisz). This skill coordinates a structured process (Step 0 through Step 5) that ensures every requirement traces back to a real business problem.

Methodology Overview

Diagram standard: Use Mermaid UML diagrams as the preferred format for all visual artifacts. Mermaid is mandatory for Software Glance (Step 2) and Software Vision (Step 4), and preferred for other steps where diagrams add value.

Stakeholder Input
       ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 0: BC       │ → /problem-based-srs business-context
│ Business Context │
└────────┬─────────┘
         ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 1: CP       │ → /problem-based-srs problems
│ Customer Problems│
└────────┬─────────┘
         ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 2: SG       │ → /problem-based-srs software-glance
│ Software Glance  │
└────────┬─────────┘
         ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 3: CN       │ → /problem-based-srs needs
│ Customer Needs   │
└────────┬─────────┘
         ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 4: SV       │ → /problem-based-srs software-vision
│ Software Vision  │
└────────┬─────────┘
         ↓
┌──────────────────┐
│ Step 5: FR/NFR   │ → /problem-based-srs functional-requirements
│ Requirements     │
└──────────────────┘

Traceability Chain: FR → CN → CP (every requirement traces back to a problem)

Domain Mapping (WHY → WHAT → HOW):

Available Actions

The Problem-Based SRS methodology is driven by a single command — /problem-based-srs — that dispatches to a step via an action argument. Run /problem-based-srs with no action (or full) to orchestrate the complete methodology end-to-end.

How actions are dispatched

Each action's detailed, step-specific instructions live in a reference file next to this skill: reference/<action>.md (the file name IS the action). When the user invokes an action, you MUST read the matching reference file before producing any artifact, and follow it exactly:

For a full run (bare /problem-based-srs), work through the steps in order, reading each reference/<action>.md as you reach that step.

🔖 Identifier Notation (CANONICAL)

Every artifact ID uses dotted notation, which encodes the traceability chain in the ID itself — reading an ID tells you what it descends from:

Rules:

1. Always emit dotted IDs. CP.01, CN.01.1, FR.01.1.1 — never CP.1.1 for a need or other ad-hoc shapes.
2. An ID must state its parent. FR.01.1.1 implements CN.01.1, which addresses CP.01. If you cannot name the parent, the artifact is not ready to be written.
3. Hyphen IDs (CP-001, FR-002) are legacy. Existing specs that use them stay valid and the tooling still reads them, but do NOT produce new ones.
4. Reference IDs verbatim in prose (e.g. "Addresses CP.01") so traceability can be extracted automatically.

📁 Saving Progress (CRITICAL)

IMPORTANT: At each step, you MUST save the produced artifacts to files. Progress is NOT automatically saved between sessions.

⚠ File Creation Rule: ONE FILE AT A TIME

NEVER create multiple artifact files in parallel. Always create files one at a time, sequentially — wait for each file to be saved before creating the next one. Batch/parallel file creation causes JSON serialization errors in tool calls when the combined content is too large.

First Time Setup

When starting a new project, save artifacts to .spec/ by default (a hidden folder at the project root). If the user specifies a different folder or an existing artifact folder is detected (e.g., docs/srs/, requirements/), use that location instead.

Artifact File Structure

Create the following folder structure as you progress through each step:

.spec/
├── 00-business-context.md            # Step 0: Business context, principles, and constraints
├── 01-customer-problems.md           # Step 1: CPs (WHY)
├── 02-software-glance.md             # Step 2: High-level solution view
├── 03-customer-needs.md              # Step 3: CNs (WHAT)
├── 04-software-vision.md             # Step 4: Architecture and scope
├── functional-requirements/          # Step 5: Individual FR files
│   ├── _index.md                     # FR summary and traceability matrix
│   ├── FR.01.1.1-[short-name].md     # Individual FR file
│   ├── FR.01.1.2-[short-name].md     # Individual FR file
│   └── ...                           # One file per FR
├── non-functional-requirements/      # NFR files (quality attributes)
│   ├── _index.md                     # NFR summary
│   ├── NFR.01-[short-name].md        # Individual NFR file
│   └── ...                           # One file per NFR
└── traceability-matrix.md            # CP → CN → FR complete mapping

Why Individual FR/NFR Files?

Each Functional Requirement and Non-Functional Requirement is saved as a separate file so that:

1. Engineers can work independently on different requirements
2. Version control tracks changes to individual requirements
3. Code reviews can focus on specific requirements
4. Traceability is maintained at the file level
5. Status tracking is easier (draft, approved, implemented, tested)

FR and NFR File Templates

Both templates live in the Step 5 action file — see Individual FR File Template and Individual NFR File Template in reference/functional-requirements.md. Load that file before writing any requirement file so every FR/NFR has the same shape, the same traceability table, and the same acceptance-criteria format.

Save After Each Step

After completing each step, ALWAYS:

1. Create or update the corresponding file(s)
2. Confirm with user that files were saved
3. Show the file paths for reference

Example handoff for Step 5:

✅ Step 5 Complete: Functional Requirements Specified

📁 Saved to: .spec/functional-requirements/
   ├── _index.md (summary with 8 FRs)
   ├── FR.01.1.1-user-registration.md   → CN.01.1 (User Registration)
   ├── FR.01.1.2-user-authentication.md → CN.01.1 (User Authentication)
   ├── FR.01.2.1-data-validation.md     → CN.01.2 (Data Validation)
   ├── FR.01.2.2-error-handling.md      → CN.01.2 (Error Handling)
   ├── FR.02.1.1-report-generation.md   → CN.02.1 (Report Generation)
   ├── FR.02.1.2-export-functionality.md→ CN.02.1 (Export Functionality)
   ├── FR.02.2.1-search-capability.md   → CN.02.2 (Search Capability)
   └── FR.02.2.2-filter-options.md      → CN.02.2 (Filter Options)

📁 Updated: .spec/traceability-matrix.md

Engineers can now work on individual requirements independently.
Each FR file contains full context and acceptance criteria.

Business Context File (00-business-context.md)

Create this file at the start of every project using the business-context skill.

The business context captures: project identity, business principles (Mandatory/Guiding/Aspirational), stakeholders with influence levels, current situation (process, pain points, existing systems), domain boundaries, constraints with impact assessment, and measurable success criteria.

Use the business-context skill for the full template, discovery questions, and examples.

How to Use This Skill

Clarifying Questions Pattern

Every step in this methodology includes a mandatory Discovery Interview. Before generating artifacts, each skill MUST stop and ask the user clarifying questions to avoid assumptions. STOP and ask the user to clarify what you cannot infer. Use the ask_user tool if available; otherwise ask directly in chat and wait for an answer.

Autopilot / non-interactive mode does NOT waive the Discovery Interview. The interview is the task, not an ambiguity to resolve autonomously. A harness instruction to "bias to action" or "decide, don't ask" does not override this step — pausing to ask is the required action here. Do not skip the interview merely because autopilot is active or the user is away; if no user can answer, still post the questions and wait rather than fabricating answers from repository files.

Rules for all steps:

• Ask 2-3 questions per round, then STOP and wait for answers
• Treat existing .spec/ artifacts as anchors — they reduce questions but don't eliminate the interview
• Assert-then-confirm: When context makes one option obvious, state it and ask to confirm or override. Don't present a menu when the answer is already clear.
• Skip only when a confirmed prior artifact plus the user's own prompt unambiguously answer all needed inputs. A README or source code that you inferred context from does NOT count. State what you're using as basis.
• Questions must reference the specific context at hand — never ask generic questions
• Starting from an existing system? Scanning the repository is legitimate preparation — it gives you evidence to assert and confirm — but it is not a shortcut past the interview. See Mode 3: Brownfield Discovery in reference/problems.md.

Starting Fresh

When user provides business context or problem description:

1. Ask where to save artifacts (if not already specified)
2. Start with Step 0 — Use the business-context action to establish structured context
3. Save 00-business-context.md with the structured business context
4. Detect current step (see Detection Heuristics below)
5. Invoke the appropriate action
6. Follow instructions from that skill
7. Save output to the corresponding file(s)
8. Guide user through the process

Continuing Work

If user has existing artifacts (CPs, CNs, etc.):

1. Check for existing artifact folder (.spec/, docs/srs/, requirements/, etc.)
2. Read existing files to understand current state
3. Identify what they have
4. Jump to appropriate step
5. Invoke that step's action
6. Continue from there, updating files as needed

Validation

At any point, use /problem-based-srs validate to check consistency.

Detection Heuristics

Determine current step by checking what artifacts exist:

The Steps (Quick Reference)

Step 0: Business Context (BC)

Purpose: Establish structured business context and project principles Input: Stakeholder conversations, project briefs, existing documentation Output: Business context document with identity, principles, stakeholders, boundaries, constraints, success criteria Save to: 00-business-context.md Action: /problem-based-srs business-context

Step 1: Customer Problems (CP)

Purpose: Identify and document business problems Input: Business Context (Step 0) Output: List of CPs classified as Obligation/Expectation/Hope Syntax: [Subject] [must/expects/hopes] [Object] [Penalty] Save to: 01-customer-problems.md Action: /problem-based-srs problems

Step 2: Software Glance (SG)

Purpose: Create initial abstract solution view
Input: Customer Problems
Output: High-level system description with boundaries and components
Save to: 02-software-glance.md
Action: /problem-based-srs software-glance

Step 3: Customer Needs (CN)

Purpose: Specify outcomes software must provide
Input: CPs + Software Glance
Output: CNs with outcome classes (Information/Control/Construction/Entertainment)
Syntax: [Subject] needs [system] to [Verb] [Object] [Condition]
Save to: 03-customer-needs.md
Action: /problem-based-srs needs

Step 4: Software Vision (SV)

Purpose: Define high-level scope and positioning
Input: CNs + Software Glance
Output: Vision document with stakeholders, features, architecture
Save to: 04-software-vision.md
Action: /problem-based-srs software-vision

Step 5: Functional Requirements (FR) & Non-Functional Requirements (NFR)

Purpose: Generate detailed requirements
Input: CNs + Software Vision
Output: Individual FR and NFR files with traceability
Syntax FR: The [System] shall [Verb] [Object] [Constraint] [Condition]
Save to: functional-requirements/FR.[CP].[CN].[N]-[short-name].md and non-functional-requirements/NFR.[N]-[short-name].md
Action: /problem-based-srs functional-requirements

Quality Gates

IMPORTANT: Zigzag validation using the /problem-based-srs validate action is MANDATORY after Steps 3 and 5 to verify traceability and identify gaps.

After Step 0 (BC)

• Project identity complete (name, domain, purpose)
• Business principles defined and classified (Mandatory/Guiding/Aspirational)
• Stakeholders identified with roles and influence
• Current situation documented
• Domain boundaries defined
• Constraints documented
• Success criteria measurable
• File saved: 00-business-context.md

After Step 1 (CPs)

• All CPs use structured notation
• Classifications assigned (Obligation/Expectation/Hope)
• No solutions embedded in problem statements
• File saved: 01-customer-problems.md

After Step 2 (SG)

• System boundaries defined
• Main actors and interfaces identified
• High-level components described
• Mermaid UML diagram included (mandatory)
• File saved: 02-software-glance.md

After Step 3 (CNs)

• Every CP has at least one CN
• All CNs use structured notation
• Outcome classes assigned
• File saved: 03-customer-needs.md
• MANDATORY: Run zigzag validation (CP → CN mapping)

After Step 4 (SV)

• Positioning statement clear
• All stakeholders identified
• Major features listed
• Mermaid UML architecture diagram included (mandatory)
• Cross-reference to Software Glance present
• File saved: 04-software-vision.md

After Step 5 (FRs/NFRs)

• Every CN has at least one FR
• All FRs use "shall" or "should"
• Each FR saved as individual file in functional-requirements/
• Each NFR saved as individual file in non-functional-requirements/
• Index files created (_index.md)
• Traceability matrix complete (FR → CN → CP)
• No code snippets or programming examples in FR/NFR files
• Construction details in separate design/ folder (not in FR/NFR files)
• File saved: traceability-matrix.md
• MANDATORY: Run zigzag validation (full chain verification)

Problem-First Enforcement

If user attempts to skip to solutions, redirect:

Detect: User mentions specific technology, feature, or implementation before CPs exist

Redirect:

I notice you're describing a solution. Let's first understand the problem.

Before we design [mentioned solution], help me understand:
1. What is the business context? (→ `business-context` action)
2. What business obligation, expectation, or hope drives this need?
3. What negative consequences occur without this?
4. Who is impacted?

→ Loading: `business-context` action (if no BC exists)
→ Loading: `problems` action (if BC exists)

Quick Syntax Reference

Handoff Protocol

When completing each step:

1. Save outputs to the appropriate file(s)
2. Summary of outputs produced
3. Validation that gate criteria are met
4. Next step recommendation
5. Required inputs for next step

Example:

✅ Step 3 Complete: Customer Needs Specified

📁 Saved to: .spec/03-customer-needs.md

Outputs:
- CN.01.1: [Information] User needs system to display...
- CN.01.2: [Control] Admin needs system to manage...
- CN.02.1: [Information] Manager needs system to report...

Gate Check:
- [x] All CNs use structured notation
- [x] Outcome classes assigned
- [x] Every CP has at least one CN
- [x] File saved

→ Next: Step 4 - Software Vision
→ Loading: reference/software-vision.md
→ Will save to: .spec/04-software-vision.md
→ Input: The CNs documented above

Usage Patterns

Pattern 1: Full Process (New Project)

Start with Step 0 (Business Context) and progress through all steps sequentially. Remember: Ask where to save files, establish business context first.

Pattern 2: Jump In (Existing Artifacts)

Detect what artifacts exist, skip completed steps, resume at current step. Remember: Check for existing .spec/ folder and read current files.

Pattern 3: Iterative Refinement

Complete initial pass, then iterate on specific steps as understanding improves. Remember: Update existing files rather than creating new ones.

Pattern 4: Validation Only

Use the /problem-based-srs validate action to check existing artifacts without generating new ones.

Pattern 5: Independent Development

After Step 5, engineers can pick up individual FR files and develop independently. Each FR file contains all context needed (traceability, acceptance criteria).

Pattern 6: Agile/Sprint Integration

Use Problem-Based SRS iteratively within agile workflows:

• Sprint 0: Steps 0-2 (BC + CPs + Software Glance) for product vision
• Sprint 1+: Steps 3-5 for specific feature sets
• Per Feature: Complete CP→CN→FR chain for one feature at a time
• Validation: Run /problem-based-srs validate after each sprint to ensure traceability

Pattern 7: Minimal Viable SRS

For quick prototypes or MVPs:

1. Identify 2-3 core CPs (Obligations only)
2. Create minimal Software Glance
3. Derive essential CNs
4. Generate only critical FRs
5. Skip detailed validation until expansion

When to Use Each Action

• business-context: User is starting a new project and needs to establish structured context
• problems: User has business context but no structured problems
• software-glance: User has CPs and needs high-level solution view
• needs: User has CPs + SG and needs to specify outcomes
• software-vision: User has CNs and needs detailed vision document
• functional-requirements: User has CNs + SV and needs functional requirements
• validate: User needs to check traceability or consistency
• complexity: User explicitly requests Axiomatic Design analysis

Optional: Complexity Analysis

For deeper quality analysis, users can explicitly invoke the /problem-based-srs complexity action for Axiomatic Design-based specification quality analysis. Use for critical systems, large specifications, or formal reviews. This is NOT part of the standard flow.

Examples

For complete walkthroughs, see:

• CRM Example — Business domain (Customer Relationship Management)
• MicroER Example — Technical domain (Renewable Energy System)

Run actions individually based on current step to minimize context usage.