How do I install the Requirements QA skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add sid-surange/requirements-qa in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Requirements QA safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Requirements QA?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Requirements QA free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Requirements QA?

SID-SURANGE (@sid-surange) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Requirements QA by sid-surange — Agent Skill

Name: Requirements QA
Author: SID-SURANGE

Requirements QA

Quality-check requirements, BRD, discovery, and understanding documents for invented content, open questions, and source conflicts. Use when working in docs/, requirements/, or BRD files; when the user asks to review a discovery question list, update a master doc, check a requirements file, or verify accuracy against source PDFs. Also use when asked "did we capture this correctly?" about any requirements document.

SID-SURANGE 0d00069 2.6 KB Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

📋 Requirements QA

Principles

The source-of-truth file is declared in .cursor/rules/project-context.mdc or AGENTS.md. Read it first.
Do not invent missing requirements. Surface gaps as open questions.
When source documents conflict, call out the conflict explicitly — do not silently resolve it.
Do not update the master doc without being asked. Only report findings.

Steps

Identify sources — find source PDFs, BRDs, emails, or meeting notes, and the master/understanding doc.
Cross-reference — every claim in the master must trace to a source doc, or be marked as an assumption.
Flag findings using the output format below.
Surface open questions — list any that remain unanswered in the source material.

Flag categories

Category	Meaning
`[invented]`	Claim in master doc with no source citation
`[conflict]`	Two source docs disagree on the same point
`[open]`	Question not yet answered in any source
`[duplicate]`	Same content repeated across multiple docs unnecessarily
`[stale]`	Content that existed in an old version but no longer matches current source

Output format

[invented]  §3.2 — "daily batch at midnight" has no source in any PDF
[conflict]  §4 vs PDF-2 p.8 — field count differs (75 vs 72 fields)
[open]      §8.1 OD-3 — Cognida role/ownership still unresolved
[duplicate] understanding.md §2 repeats master.md §3.1 verbatim

Report all findings before making any edits.

Gotchas

If no source-of-truth file is declared anywhere (.cursor/rules/project-context.mdc, AGENTS.md), do not guess which doc is authoritative — ask. Picking the wrong one silently propagates wrong "invented" flags.
Scanned/image-only source PDFs may extract as empty or garbled text depending on the tool used to read them — treat a suspiciously short or nonsensical extraction as "unable to verify," not as "no source found."
A claim can be technically traceable to a source doc but still wrong if the source itself was superseded by a later document — check document dates, not just presence of the claim.

---name: requirements-qadescription: Quality-check requirements, BRD, discovery, and understanding documents for invented content, open questions, and source conflicts. Use when working in docs/, requirements/, or BRD files; when the user asks to review a discovery question list, update a master doc, check a requirements file, or verify accuracy against source PDFs. Also use when asked "did we capture this correctly?" about any requirements document.---# 📋 Requirements QA## Principles- The source-of-truth file is declared in `.cursor/rules/project-context.mdc` or `AGENTS.md`. Read it first.- Do not invent missing requirements. Surface gaps as open questions.- When source documents conflict, call out the conflict explicitly — do not silently resolve it.- Do not update the master doc without being asked. Only report findings.## Steps1. **Identify sources** — find source PDFs, BRDs, emails, or meeting notes, and the master/understanding doc.2. **Cross-reference** — every claim in the master must trace to a source doc, or be marked as an assumption.3. **Flag findings** using the output format below.4. **Surface open questions** — list any that remain unanswered in the source material.## Flag categories| Category | Meaning ||----------|---------|| `[invented]` | Claim in master doc with no source citation || `[conflict]` | Two source docs disagree on the same point || `[open]` | Question not yet answered in any source || `[duplicate]` | Same content repeated across multiple docs unnecessarily || `[stale]` | Content that existed in an old version but no longer matches current source |## Output format```[invented] §3.2 — "daily batch at midnight" has no source in any PDF[conflict] §4 vs PDF-2 p.8 — field count differs (75 vs 72 fields)[open] §8.1 OD-3 — Cognida role/ownership still unresolved[duplicate] understanding.md §2 repeats master.md §3.1 verbatim```Report all findings before making any edits.## Gotchas- If no source-of-truth file is declared anywhere (`.cursor/rules/project-context.mdc`, `AGENTS.md`), do not guess which doc is authoritative — ask. Picking the wrong one silently propagates wrong "invented" flags.- Scanned/image-only source PDFs may extract as empty or garbled text depending on the tool used to read them — treat a suspiciously short or nonsensical extraction as "unable to verify," not as "no source found."- A claim can be technically traceable to a source doc but still wrong if the source itself was superseded by a later document — check document dates, not just presence of the claim.

Frequently asked questions