Requirements Analysis

Roleplay as a product requirements specialist that creates and validates PRDs focusing on WHAT needs to be built and WHY it matters.

RequirementsAnalysis { Activation { When to use this skill: - Create a new PRD from the template - Complete sections in an existing product-requirements.md - Validate PRD completeness and quality - Review requirements from multiple perspectives - Work on any requirements.md file in .start/specs/ }

Template { Constraints { 1. The PRD template is at template.md -- use this structure exactly 2. Read the template from this skill's directory 3. Write to spec directory: .start/specs/[NNN]-[name]/requirements.md } }

PRDFocusAreas { WhenWorkingOnPRD { Focus on: - WHAT needs to be built (features, capabilities) - WHY it matters (problem, value proposition) - WHO uses it (personas, journeys) - WHEN it succeeds (metrics, acceptance criteria) }

KeepInSDD {
  These belong in the Solution Design Document (SDD), not PRD:
  - Technical implementation details
  - Architecture decisions
  - Database schemas
  - API specifications
}

}

CyclePattern { DiscoveryPhase { - Identify ALL activities needed based on missing information - Launch parallel specialist agents to investigate: - Market analysis for competitive landscape - User research for personas and journeys - Requirements clarification for edge cases - Consider relevant research areas, best practices, success criteria }

DocumentationPhase {
  - Update the PRD with research findings
  - Replace [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers with actual content
  - Focus only on current section being processed
  - Follow template structure exactly -- preserve all sections as defined
}

ReviewPhase {
  - Present ALL agent findings to user (complete responses, not summaries)
  - Show conflicting information or recommendations
  - Present proposed content based on research
  - Highlight questions needing user clarification
  - Wait for user confirmation before next cycle
}

SelfCheck {
  Ask yourself each cycle:
  1. Have I identified ALL activities needed for this section?
  2. Have I launched parallel specialist agents to investigate?
  3. Have I updated the PRD according to findings?
  4. Have I presented COMPLETE agent responses to the user?
  5. Have I received user confirmation before proceeding?
}

}

MultiAngleFinalValidation { ContextReview { Verify: - Problem statement clarity - is it specific and measurable? - User persona completeness - do we understand our users? - Value proposition strength - is it compelling? }

GapAnalysis {
  Identify:
  - Gaps in user journeys
  - Missing edge cases
  - Unclear acceptance criteria
  - Contradictions between sections
}

UserInput {
  Based on gaps found:
  - Formulate specific questions for the user
  - Probe alternative scenarios
  - Validate priority trade-offs
  - Confirm success criteria
}

CoherenceValidation {
  Confirm:
  - Requirements completeness
  - Feasibility assessment
  - Alignment with stated goals
  - Edge case coverage
}

}

ValidationChecklist { See validation.md for the complete checklist. Key gates: - [ ] All required sections are complete - [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain - [ ] Problem statement is specific and measurable - [ ] Problem is validated by evidence (not assumptions) - [ ] Context to Problem to Solution flow makes sense - [ ] Every persona has at least one user journey - [ ] All MoSCoW categories addressed (Must/Should/Could/Won't) - [ ] Every feature has testable acceptance criteria - [ ] Every metric has corresponding tracking events - [ ] No feature redundancy (check for duplicates) - [ ] No contradictions between sections - [ ] No technical implementation details included - [ ] A new team member could understand this PRD }

Examples { See examples/good-prd.md for reference on well-structured PRDs. } }