analysis-specifications
Review specifications to find gaps and generate clarifying questions. Use when reviewing spec.md, finding missing requirements, identifying ambiguities, or when you see "review spec", "find gaps", "what's missing", or "clarify requirements". Focuses on product decisions, not implementation details.
Installation
Suivez les instructions du dépôt pour votre agent. Consultez les fichiers et dépendances avant l’installation.
Voir la source ↗GuidesInstructions
Reviewing Specifications
Purpose
Find gaps in specifications and generate clarifying questions that a product owner or stakeholder can answer. Focus on WHAT is missing, not HOW to implement.
Core Principle
Ask product questions, not implementation questions.
| Wrong (Technical) | Right (Product) |
|---|---|
| "What happens if the database connection fails?" | "What should users see if the system is temporarily unavailable?" |
| "Should we use optimistic or pessimistic locking?" | "Can two users edit the same item simultaneously?" |
| "What's the retry policy for failed API calls?" | "How long should users wait before seeing an error?" |
| "What HTTP status code for invalid input?" | "What message should users see for invalid input?" |
Question Format
Frame every question as a decision the user can make:
**Question**: [Clear product decision]
**Options**:
1. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
2. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
3. [Concrete choice] - [What this means for users]
**Why this matters**: [User or business impact]
Gap Categories
Focus on these user-facing gaps:
| Category | Example Questions |
|---|---|
| User expectations | "What should users see when...?" |
| Business rules | "Is X allowed? Under what conditions?" |
| Scope boundaries | "Is Y in scope for this feature?" |
| Success/failure states | "What happens if the user...?" |
| Permissions | "Who can do X? Who cannot?" |
What to Avoid
- Implementation details (databases, APIs, protocols)
- Technical edge cases (connection failures, race conditions)
- Architecture decisions (caching, queuing, scaling)
- Performance specifications (latency, throughput)
These are valid concerns but belong in the planning phase, not specification.
Severity Classification
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Cannot build without this answer | Must ask now |
| Important | Will cause rework if not clarified | Should ask now |
| Minor | Polish issue, can defer | Log and continue |
Output Format
## Gaps Found
### Critical
- **Gap**: [What's missing]
- **Question**: [Product decision needed]
- **Options**: [2-3 choices]
### Important
- **Gap**: [What's missing]
- **Question**: [Product decision needed]
- **Options**: [2-3 choices]
### Minor (Deferred)
- [Gap description] - can be resolved during planning
Review Process
- Read the full specification before identifying gaps
- Check each user story for completeness
- Verify success criteria are measurable
- Identify missing edge cases for each flow
- Classify gaps by severity
- Generate questions with concrete options
- Group related gaps to avoid overwhelming stakeholders
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing the review, verify:
- All user stories reviewed for completeness
- Success criteria checked for measurability
- Edge cases identified for each main flow
- Gaps classified by severity (Critical/Important/Minor)
- All questions are product-focused (not technical)
- Each question has 2-3 concrete options
- "Why this matters" explains user/business impact
- Related gaps grouped together
- No implementation details in questions
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Technical questions | "What retry policy?" asks implementation | Ask "How long should users wait?" |
| Vague questions | "What about errors?" is unclear | Be specific: "What message when X fails?" |
| No options | Open-ended questions are hard to answer | Provide 2-3 concrete choices |
| Too many gaps | Overwhelming stakeholders | Limit to 5-7 critical/important per round |
| Missing impact | Stakeholder doesn't know why it matters | Add "Why this matters" for each |
| Implementation bias | Framing assumes technical solution | Focus on user outcomes |
| Scope creep | Adding new features as "gaps" | Only clarify existing scope |
| Ignoring context | Missing domain knowledge | Reference existing patterns/decisions |
Exemples
Consultez les exemples du dépôt source.
Voir la source ↗Historique source
- Date d’indexation
- 2026-01-20
- Mise à jour de l’index
- 2026-02-04
- Branch
- main
Les dates concernent ce répertoire. Consultez le dépôt pour l’historique du code.
GitHub ↗chat Comments (0)
Sign in to join the discussion and leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!