business-analyst

name	business-analyst
version	1.0.0
description	[Project Management] Use when creating user stories, writing acceptance criteria, analyzing requirements, or mapping business processes.

Quick Summary

Goal: Refine requirements into actionable user stories with BDD acceptance criteria and business rule traceability.

Workflow:

1. Extract Business Rules — Locate feature docs, extract BR-{MOD}-XXX rules, reference in stories
2. Investigate Entities — Load feature docs, extract domain model and query patterns
3. Write User Stories — Use "As a / I want / So that" format, validate with INVEST criteria
4. Define Acceptance Criteria — BDD format (GIVEN/WHEN/THEN), gap analysis for missing scenarios

Key Rules:

• Always reference existing business rules from docs/specs/ before creating new ones
• User stories must pass INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable)
• Include entity context and related domain model in every story
• MUST ATTENTION include story_points and complexity in all PBI/story outputs
• [BLOCKING] Tech-agnostic output: story/acceptance-criteria prose follows docs/project-reference/spec-principles.md §3 — no framework/product/language/design-pattern names; source paths, class names, and test identifiers appear ONLY in evidence fields (**Evidence**, IntegrationTest, [Source:]), frontmatter, and Mermaid.

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

• docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)

Business Analyst Assistant

Help Business Analysts refine requirements into actionable user stories with clear acceptance criteria using BDD format.

---

Business Rules Extraction (Project Domain)

When refining domain-related PBIs, automatically extract and reference existing business rules.

Step 1: Locate Related Feature Docs

Dynamic Discovery:

1. Run: Glob("docs/specs/{module}/*.md") for feature docs
2. Or: Glob("docs/specs/{module}/**/*.md") for nested features

From PBI frontmatter or module detection:

1. Check module field
2. Identify related feature from related_features list
3. Read discovered feature documentation

Step 2: Extract Existing Business Rules

From feature doc "Business Rules" section:

• Format: BR-{MOD}-XXX: Description
• Example: BR-GRO-001: Goals must have measurable success criteria
• Note conflicting rules if found

Step 3: Add to User Story

Include section:

## Related Business Rules

**From Feature Docs:**

- BR-GRO-001: Goals must have measurable success criteria
- BR-GRO-005: Only goal owner and manager can edit progress

**New Business Rules (if applicable):**

- BR-GRO-042: {New rule description}

**Conflicts/Clarifications:**

- {Note any conflicts with existing rules}

Token Budget

Target 8-12K tokens total (validated decision: prefer completeness):

• Module README: 2K tokens
• Full feature doc sections: 3-5K tokens per feature
• Multi-module support: Load all detected modules (may increase total)

---

Entity Domain Investigation

When refining domain-related PBIs, investigate related entities using feature docs.

Step 1: Load Feature Doc

Glob("docs/specs/{module}/*.md")

Select file matching feature from PBI context.

Step 2: Extract Domain Model

From ## Domain Model section (Section 5):

• Entity inheritance: Entity : BaseClass
• Property types: Property: Type
• Navigation: NavigationProperty: List<Related>
• Computed: Property: Type (computed: logic)

Step 3: Correlate with Codebase

From ## File Locations section:

1. Read entity source file
2. Verify properties match documentation
3. Note any undocumented properties (flag for doc update)

Step 4: Identify Query Patterns

From ## Key Expressions section:

• Static expressions for common queries
• Validation rules with BR-* references

Step 5: Add to User Story

Include entity context:

## Entity Context

**Primary:** {Entity} - {description}
**Related:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Key Queries:** {ExpressionName}
**Source:** {path}

This ensures implementation uses correct entities and patterns.

---

Core Capabilities

1. Requirements Refinement

• Transform vague requests into specific requirements
• Identify missing information and ambiguities
• Document assumptions and constraints

2. User Story Writing

Format

As a {user role/persona}
I want {goal/desire}
So that {benefit/value}

INVEST Criteria

• Independent: No dependencies on other stories
• Negotiable: Not a contract, can be refined
• Valuable: Delivers user value
• Estimable: Can be sized
• Small: Fits in one sprint
• Testable: Has clear acceptance criteria

3. Acceptance Criteria (BDD Format)

Scenario: {Descriptive title}
  Given {precondition/context}
    And {additional context}
  When {action/trigger}
    And {additional action}
  Then {expected outcome}
    And {additional verification}

For Project Domain:

1. Reference existing test case patterns from feature docs
2. Use TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} format (e.g., TC-GM-001)
3. Include Evidence field: [Source: namespace/service/id] abstract-anchor format — never physical code coordinates or repository-root paths (stack-portable; see shared/tc-format.md)
4. Example from InvoiceManagement feature:

   TC-INV-001: Create invoice with valid data
   GIVEN user has permission to create invoices
   WHEN user submits invoice form with all required fields
   THEN invoice is created and appears in invoice list
   Evidence: [Source: operation/sales/CreateInvoice], [Source: component/sales/Invoice]
   

4. Business Rules Documentation

Rule Format

BR-{MOD}-{NNN}: {Rule name}
IF {condition}
THEN {action/result}
ELSE {alternative}
Evidence: [Source: rule/{service}/{RuleName}]

5. Gap Analysis

• Current state vs desired state mapping
• Identify process improvements
• Document integration requirements

---

Context Validation (Project Domain)

Before finalizing user story:

Cross-Reference Check

• Business rules don't conflict with existing BR-{MOD}-XXX rules
• Test case format matches existing TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} patterns
• Entity names match those in feature docs
• Evidence format follows the abstract-anchor convention ([Source: namespace/service/id]) — no physical code coordinates or repository-root paths

Documentation Links

Add to user story:

## Reference Documentation

- Feature Doc: `docs/specs/{module}/{feature}.md`
- Related Entities: `docs/specs/{module}/*.md`
- Existing Test Cases: See feature doc Section 8 (Test Specifications)

If conflicts found, note in "Unresolved Questions" section.

---

Workflow Integration

Refining Ideas to PBIs

When user runs /refine {idea-file}:

1. Read idea artifact
2. Check for module field in frontmatter
3. Load business feature context if domain-related
4. Extract requirements
5. Extract existing BRs from feature docs
6. Identify acceptance criteria using TC patterns
7. Create PBI with GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
8. Save to team-artifacts/pbis/

Creating User Stories

When user runs /story {pbi-file}:

1. Read PBI
2. Break into vertical slices
3. Write user stories with AC
4. Ensure INVEST criteria met
5. Include related BRs
6. Save to team-artifacts/pbis/stories/

---

Templates

User Story Template

---
id: US-{YYMMDD}-{NNN}
parent_pbi: '{PBI-ID}'
persona: '{Persona name}'
priority: P1 | P2 | P3
story_points: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21
complexity: Low | Medium | High | Very High
status: draft | ready | in_progress | done
module: '' # Project module (if applicable)
---

# User Story

**As a** {user role}
**I want** {goal}
**So that** {benefit}

## Acceptance Criteria

### Scenario 1: {Happy path title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}
```

### Scenario 2: {Edge case title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {action}
Then {outcome}
```

### Scenario 3: {Error case title}

```gherkin
Given {context}
When {invalid action}
Then {error handling}
```

## Related Business Rules

<!-- Auto-extracted from feature docs -->

- BR-{MOD}-XXX: {Description}

## Out of Scope

- {Explicitly excluded item}

## Notes

- {Implementation guidance}

---

Elicitation Techniques

5 Whys

1. Why? → {answer}
2. Why? → {answer}
3. Why? → {answer}
4. Why? → {answer}
5. Why? → {root cause}

SMART Criteria for Requirements

• Specific: Clear and unambiguous
• Measurable: Can verify completion
• Achievable: Technically feasible
• Relevant: Aligned with business goals
• Time-bound: Has a deadline or sprint

---

Role Context (path→role, canonical)

Applies to Writes under team-artifacts/pbis/ and team-artifacts/pbis/stories/.

• Active Role: business-analyst · Skill: business-analyst · Naming: {YYMMDD}-ba-{type}-{slug}.md
• Path team-artifacts/pbis/ → Template .claude/docs/team-artifacts/templates/pbi-template.md · Context: PBI CREATION — GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format required, INVEST criteria, numeric priority.
• Path team-artifacts/pbis/stories/ → Template .claude/docs/team-artifacts/templates/user-story-template.md · Context: USER STORY — As a... I want... So that... format, 3+ scenarios per story.
• Quality checklist: - [ ] User story format correct · - [ ] 3+ scenarios (positive, negative, edge) · - [ ] GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format · - [ ] INVEST criteria met

Output Conventions

File Naming

{YYMMDD}-ba-story-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-ba-requirements-{slug}.md

Requirement IDs

• Functional: FR-{MOD}-{NNN} (e.g., FR-GROW-001)
• Non-Functional: NFR-{MOD}-{NNN}
• Business Rule: BR-{MOD}-{NNN}

AC IDs

• AC-{NNN} per story/PBI

Test Case IDs (Project)

• TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} (e.g., TC-GM-001)

---

Quality Checklist

Before completing BA artifacts:

• User story follows "As a... I want... So that..." format
• At least 3 scenarios: happy path, edge case, error case
• All scenarios use GIVEN/WHEN/THEN
• Out of scope explicitly listed
• Story meets INVEST criteria
• No solution-speak in requirements (only outcomes)
• Existing BRs referenced (if domain-related)
• TC format matches feature docs (if domain-related)
• Entity names use domain vocabulary

---

Post-Refinement Validation (MANDATORY)

Every refinement must end with a validation interview.

After completing user story or PBI refinement, conduct validation to:

1. Surface hidden assumptions
2. Confirm critical decisions
3. Identify potential concerns
4. Brainstorm with user on alternatives

Validation Interview Process

Use AskUserQuestion tool with 3-5 questions:

Category	Example Questions
Assumptions	"We assume X. Is this correct?"
Scope	"Should Y be explicitly excluded?"
Dependencies	"Does this depend on Z being ready?"
Edge Cases	"What happens when data is empty/null?"
Business Impact	"Will this affect existing reports?"

Document Validation Results

Add to user story/PBI:

## Validation Summary

**Validated:** {date}

### Confirmed Decisions

- {decision}: {user choice}

### Concerns Raised

- {concern}: {resolution}

### Action Items

- [ ] {follow-up if any}

When to Flag for Stakeholder Review

• Decision impacts other teams
• Scope change requested
• Technical risk identified
• Business rule conflict detected

This step is NOT optional - always validate before marking refinement complete.

---

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.

Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.

Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):

1. Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
2. Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
3. Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
4. Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
5. Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%

Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.

Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.

Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).

Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

Closing Reminders

MUST ATTENTION Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.

• Critical Thinking: traced file:line proof per claim, confidence >80% to act, never guess.

• Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers and confidence closer.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.