tools-only /nfr-review
Review existing non-functional requirements for completeness, measurability, and feasibility. Uses three parallel agents to evaluate coverage against ISO 25010, check that every requirement has quantifiable targets, and identify conflicts or infeasible targets.
When to Use This Skill
- Reviewing NFRs before architecture board submission
- Validating that captured requirements are testable and measurable
- Checking NFR coverage gaps for a system type
- Identifying conflicting requirements that need trade-off discussions
- Preparing NFRs for inclusion in contracts or SLAs
Usage
/nfr-review <path-to-nfr-document> [--system-type web|api|batch|mobile|iot]
Parameters
| Parameter | Description | Required |
|---|---|---|
path |
Path to the NFR document or note | Yes |
--system-type |
System type for contextual gap analysis | No |
Instructions
Phase 1: Parse Existing NFRs
Read the specified NFR document and extract:
- All NFR statements with their IDs, categories, and targets
- Any acceptance criteria or verification methods
- Priority assignments
- Owner assignments
Phase 2: Parallel Review — Agent Team
Launch three agents simultaneously using the Task tool.
Agent 1: Completeness Reviewer (Sonnet) Task: Check NFR coverage against ISO 25010 quality model
- Map existing NFRs to ISO 25010 quality characteristics
- Identify categories with no NFRs (gaps)
- Compare coverage against expected categories for the system type:
- Web app: Performance, Security, Usability, Accessibility required
- API: Performance, Reliability, Security, Interoperability required
- Batch: Performance (throughput), Reliability (recovery), Maintainability required
- Mobile: Usability, Performance, Portability, Offline capability required
- Flag categories that are typically critical for this system type but missing
- Check for orphan NFRs that don't map to any quality characteristic Return: Coverage matrix showing present/absent categories with gap severity ratings
Agent 2: Measurability Reviewer (Sonnet) Task: Verify every NFR is quantifiable and testable
- Check each NFR for specific, numeric targets (not "fast" but "< 500ms")
- Verify acceptance criteria exist and are testable
- Flag vague language: "should be fast", "highly available", "secure", "scalable"
- Flag missing units, thresholds, or percentiles
- For each vague NFR, suggest a concrete, measurable replacement
- Check verification methods are appropriate (test, audit, review, monitoring) Return: Measurability scorecard — each NFR rated as Measurable / Partially Measurable / Vague, with suggested improvements
Agent 3: Feasibility Reviewer (Sonnet) Task: Check that NFR targets are realistic and non-conflicting
- Identify NFRs with unrealistic targets (e.g., 100% availability, 0ms latency)
- Find conflicting requirements:
- Performance vs Security (encryption overhead vs response time)
- Availability vs Cost (multi-region vs budget constraints)
- Scalability vs Simplicity (distributed vs monolith)
- Check that NFRs are achievable with stated technology choices
- Identify NFRs that require clarification or stakeholder discussion
- Flag NFRs with no priority or owner assigned Return: Feasibility assessment per NFR with conflicts and recommendations
Phase 3: Synthesise Review Report
Combine agent results into a review report:
- Calculate overall NFR quality score (0-100)
- List all gaps by severity
- List all measurability issues with suggested fixes
- List all conflicts requiring trade-off discussions
- Prioritise remediation actions
Output Format
# NFR Review: <System/Project Name>
## Review Summary
**Overall Score:** X/100
**Grade:** A (90+) / B (80-89) / C (70-79) / D (60-69) / F (<60)
| Dimension | Score | Issues Found |
|----------------|-------|--------------|
| Completeness | X/100 | X gaps |
| Measurability | X/100 | X vague NFRs |
| Feasibility | X/100 | X conflicts |
## Coverage Gaps
| Missing Category | Expected For System Type | Severity | Suggested NFR |
|------------------|--------------------------|----------|----------------------------|
| Accessibility | Web application | High | WCAG 2.1 AA compliance |
| Data residency | Handles PII | Critical | EU-only data storage |
## Measurability Issues
| NFR ID | Current Text | Issue | Suggested Improvement |
|---------------|----------------------------------|----------------|-------------------------------------|
| NFR-PERF-003 | "Must be fast" | Vague | "P95 response time < 500ms" |
| NFR-SEC-001 | "Must be secure" | No criteria | "TLS 1.3, AES-256 at rest, OWASP" |
## Conflicts Requiring Resolution
| NFR A | NFR B | Conflict | Recommendation |
|----------------|----------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------|
| NFR-PERF-001 | NFR-SEC-002 | Encryption adds 50ms latency | Revise P95 to 550ms |
## Feasibility Concerns
| NFR ID | Issue | Recommendation |
|---------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| NFR-REL-001 | 99.999% availability requires multi-region | Confirm budget for multi-AZ |
## Remediation Actions (Prioritised)
1. **Critical:** <action>
2. **High:** <action>
3. **Medium:** <action>
Examples
Example 1: Review Web Application NFRs
/nfr-review path/to/order-service-nfrs.md --system-type web
Reviews NFRs for a web application, checking for missing usability and accessibility requirements.
Example 2: Review API NFRs
/nfr-review path/to/payment-api-nfrs.md --system-type api
Reviews API NFRs with focus on interoperability, rate limiting, and contract testing requirements.
Invoke with: /nfr-review <path-to-nfr-document> to get a comprehensive quality assessment