搜索

PythonReactSEOPDF
GitHub Skill

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.

deepeshBodh☆ 16 仓库 Stars1 仓库 Forks

安装与使用

请根据来源仓库和你的 AI 工具说明安装此技能。先阅读技能文件和依赖要求,再添加到工作流。

查看来源 ↗使用指南

技能说明

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

  1. Read the full specification before identifying gaps
  2. Check each user story for completeness
  3. Verify success criteria are measurable
  4. Identify missing edge cases for each flow
  5. Classify gaps by severity
  6. Generate questions with concrete options
  7. 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

使用示例

查看来源仓库中的使用示例与配置说明。

查看来源 ↗

来源历史

收录时间
2026-01-20
索引更新时间
2026-02-04
Branch
main

收录与同步日期属于本站记录。源码修改历史请查看来源仓库。

GitHub ↗

chat Comments (0)

chat_bubble_outline

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!