Skip to main content
requirements-merge Combines multiple requirement sources into a single coherent specification, handling conflicts and redundancies while maintaining source traceability and supporting stakeholder review workflows.
Zur Installation springen Skills Marktplatz Entdecken und erkunden Sie KI-Skills, die von der Community erstellt wurden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Prompt-Details anzeigen Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
npx skills add https://github.com/zhongadamwang/CCAGA --skill requirements-mergeDer Befehl bleibt in einer Zeile. Scrollen Sie horizontal, um ihn vor dem Kopieren vollständig zu prüfen.
Sie bevorzugen eine lokale Kopie? Laden Sie die Dateien herunter, die SkillsMP derzeit vorliegen.
ZIP herunterladen Herunterladen... Mehr aus diesem Repository Identify, document, and track changes to requirements, processes, and specifications with automated referencing and impact analysis. Converts AI conversation text into structured change documents following established change tracking workflows.
diagram-generatecollaboration Generate Mermaid collaboration diagrams embedded in markdown, visualizing system interactions and workflows from domain concepts and requirements. Creates sequence diagrams, flowcharts, class diagrams, and interaction patterns with traceability links to source requirements.
Align extracted domain concepts with existing organizational domain models and standards. Maps new concepts to existing entities, identifies conflicts and inconsistencies in terminology, suggests alignments and standardizations, and produces mapping documentation for consistent domain modeling across projects.
Verwandte Berufe SOC
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
name requirements-merge description Combines multiple requirement sources into a single coherent specification, handling conflicts and redundancies while maintaining source traceability and supporting stakeholder review workflows. license MIT
Requirements Merge
Intelligently merges requirements from multiple sources and formats into a unified, coherent specification while identifying conflicts, eliminating redundancies, preserving important variations, and maintaining complete source traceability throughout stakeholder review processes.
Core Function
Input : Multiple requirements documents + project_id + merge_strategy + conflict_resolution_rules
Primary Output : Markdown unified requirements specification (for stakeholder review and downstream skills)
Secondary Output : JSON format with detailed merge analysis and traceability (for machine processing and audit trails)
Output Destination :
Markdown: outputs/projects/{project_id}/Analysis/unified-requirements.md (primary for downstream)
JSON: outputs/projects/{project_id}/Analysis/merge-analysis.json (machine processing)
Conflicts Log: outputs/projects/{project_id}/Analysis/merge-conflicts.md (stakeholder review)
Directory Structure : Auto-created project folders with Analysis subfolder containing unified requirements, merge analysis, conflict resolution logs, and stakeholder approval tracking
Usage
GitHub Copilot Integration (Recommended):
Use this skill directly in Copilot by providing multiple requirements documents and merge strategy.
Copilot will automatically merge requirements, identify conflicts, and produce a unified specification.
Example prompt:
"Use requirements-merge skill to merge these three requirements documents: [doc1.md], [doc2.pdf], [doc3.docx]. Apply conservative merge strategy with manual conflict resolution for high-impact conflicts."
Traditional Script Approach:
from process_merge import RequirementsMerger
merger = RequirementsMerger()
result = merger.merge_requirements([
"requirements-v1.md" ,
"stakeholder-feedback.docx" ,
"technical-constraints.pdf"
], "PROJECT-001" , merge_strategy="comprehensive" )
Command Line:
python process_merge.py PROJECT-001 --strategy comprehensive requirements-v1.md stakeholder-feedback.docx technical-constraints.pdf
Output Schema
Primary Format (Markdown) - Unified Requirements Specification:
# Unified Requirements Specification
**Project** : PROJECT-001
**Merge Date** : 2026-02-15T10:30:00Z
**Sources Merged** : 3 documents (requirements-v1.md, stakeholder-feedback.docx, technical-constraints.pdf)
**Total Requirements** : 47 (15 core, 20 merged, 12 enhanced)
**Conflicts Resolved** : 8 (3 automatic, 5 stakeholder-reviewed)
**Merge Strategy** : Comprehensive with stakeholder validation
## Executive Summary
**Merge Outcome** : Successfully unified 3 requirement sources into coherent specification
**Quality Metrics** : 96% requirement coverage, 100% traceability maintained
**Stakeholder Impact** : 5 conflicts requiring stakeholder review and approval
**Next Steps** : Stakeholder review of conflict resolutions, final approval workflow
## Requirements by Category
### Core Requirements (Consensus Across Sources)
#### R-001: User Authentication
**Unified Requirement** : System shall authenticate users using multi-factor authentication within 3 seconds
**Source Traceability** :
- requirements-v1.md (R-003): "System shall authenticate users within 3 seconds"
- stakeholder-feedback.docx (SF-012): "Must support multi-factor authentication"
- technical-constraints.pdf (TC-007): "Authentication response time ≤ 3 seconds"
**Merge Method** : Consensus enhancement
**Confidence Level** : High (100% source agreement)
#### R-002: Data Storage Compliance
**Unified Requirement** : All user data shall be stored in compliance with GDPR, CCPA, and SOX regulations with end-to-end encryption
**Source Traceability** :
- requirements-v1.md (R-015): "Data storage must comply with GDPR"
- stakeholder-feedback.docx (SF-008): "Need CCPA and SOX compliance"
- technical-constraints.pdf (TC-003): "Implement end-to-end encryption for all data"
**Merge Method** : Regulatory aggregation
Secondary Format (JSON) - Machine Processing and Audit Trail:
{
"metadata" : {
"project_id" : "PROJECT-001" ,
"merge_timestamp" : "2026-02-15T10:30:00Z" ,
"sources" : [
{
"filename" : "requirements-v1.md" ,
"requirements_count" : 25 ,
"format" : "markdown"
} ,
{
"filename" : "stakeholder-feedback.docx" ,
"requirements_count" : 31 ,
"format" : "docx"
} ,
{
"filename" : "technical-constraints.pdf" ,
"requirements_count" : 17 ,
"format" : "pdf"
Tertiary Format (Markdown) - Conflict Resolution Log for Stakeholder Review:
# Merge Conflicts Resolution Log
**Project** : PROJECT-001
**Generated** : 2026-02-15T10:30:00Z
**Status** : 5 of 8 conflicts require stakeholder resolution
## High Priority Conflicts (Executive Decision Required)
### CR-003: Deployment Architecture Strategy
**Impact Level** : 🔴 **HIGH** - Affects entire technical architecture and cost model
**Sources** : All three requirement documents present different architectural preferences
**Business Impact** :
- Cost implications: Cloud vs on-premises operational expenses
- Timeline impact: 2-4 months difference in deployment approach
- Scalability constraints: Different growth capacity based on choice
**Technical Impact** :
- Development approach: Cloud-native vs hybrid development patterns
- Integration complexity: Different third-party service integration approaches
- Maintenance overhead: Varying operational support requirements
**Stakeholder Positions** :
- **IT Leadership** : Prefers cloud-native for scalability and maintenance reduction
- **Finance Team** : Concerned about ongoing cloud costs vs capital expenditure
- **Compliance Team** : Requires hybrid approach for sensitive data sovereignty
- **Development Team** : Recommends cloud-native for development velocity
**Recommended Resolution Process** :
1. Executive stakeholder meeting by 2026-02-17
2. Total cost of ownership analysis presentation
3. Risk assessment for each deployment option
4. Final decision and implementation roadmap approval
**Interim Approach** : Continue cloud-native development with deployment flexibility preserved
### CR-001: Authentication Protocol Standards
Instructions
1. Multi-Source Requirement Analysis
Source Processing Strategy :
Format Normalization : Convert all input formats (PDF, DOCX, MD, TXT, etc.) into structured requirement objectsSemantic Analysis : Use NLP to identify requirement intent, not just textual similarityCategorization Consistency : Apply consistent requirement categorization across all sourcesQuality Assessment : Evaluate requirement clarity, completeness, and testability for each source
Requirement Extraction Process :
Atomic Decomposition : Break complex requirements into atomic, testable componentsContext Preservation : Maintain business context and rationale from original sourcesDependency Identification : Map dependencies and relationships between requirementsPriority Inheritance : Preserve or infer requirement priorities from source documents
2. Conflict Detection and Classification
Conflict Types :
Direct Contradiction : Requirements that explicitly contradict each otherPriority Mismatch : Same requirement with different priority levels across sourcesScope Variance : Different interpretations of requirement scope and boundariesImplementation Approach : Different technical approaches for achieving same goalQuality Attributes : Conflicting non-functional requirements (performance, security, etc.)Timeline Conflicts : Requirements with incompatible delivery timeline expectations
Conflict Analysis Process :
Semantic Similarity : Use NLP to identify semantically similar but conflicting requirementsImpact Assessment : Evaluate business, technical, and timeline impact of each conflictStakeholder Mapping : Identify which stakeholders are affected by each conflictResolution Complexity : Assess difficulty and resource requirements for conflict resolution
Conflict Prioritization :
High Priority : Architectural decisions, regulatory requirements, security fundamentalsMedium Priority : Feature specifications, performance requirements, integration approachesLow Priority : Implementation details, tooling choices, coding standards
3. Automatic Conflict Resolution
Auto-Resolution Rules (Conservative Approach) :
Regulatory Compliance : Always choose most restrictive compliance requirementSecurity Standards : Always apply highest security standard when multiple specifiedPerformance Metrics : Use most stringent performance requirement that's technically feasibleData Quality : Apply highest data quality and integrity standardsTesting Standards : Adopt most comprehensive testing requirement coverage
Safe Auto-Resolution Criteria :
Resolution doesn't change fundamental business logic
No significant cost or timeline impact
Technical feasibility is confirmed
Regulatory or security compliance is maintained
All affected stakeholders would reasonably agree with resolution
Documentation Requirements :
Log all automatic resolutions with detailed rationale
Provide rollback mechanism if stakeholders disagree with auto-resolution
Maintain audit trail for compliance and review purposes
4. Stakeholder-Driven Conflict Resolution
Resolution Workflow :
Conflict Presentation : Clearly articulate conflict sources, implications, and optionsImpact Analysis : Provide business, technical, cost, and timeline impact assessmentRecommendation Development : Present recommended resolution with supporting rationaleStakeholder Consultation : Facilitate stakeholder discussion and decision-makingDecision Documentation : Formally record stakeholder decisions and approval
Escalation Framework :
Team Level : Technical decisions, implementation approaches, minor scope changesArchitecture Review : System design conflicts, technology stack decisions, major technical patternsBusiness Stakeholders : Feature priorities, business rule conflicts, user experience decisionsExecutive Level : Strategy conflicts, major cost implications, significant timeline impacts
Decision Support Tools :
Cost-Benefit Analysis : Quantitative impact assessment for each resolution optionRisk Assessment : Technical, business, and operational risks for different resolution pathsPrototype Development : When needed, develop prototypes to validate resolution approachesStakeholder Voting : Structured decision-making process for complex multi-stakeholder conflicts
5. Redundancy Elimination with Context Preservation
Redundancy Detection :
Textual Similarity : Identify requirements with similar wording but potentially different intentFunctional Equivalence : Detect requirements that achieve the same functional outcomeImplementation Overlap : Identify requirements that would result in overlapping implementationBusiness Value Duplication : Find requirements targeting identical business outcomes
Intelligent Consolidation :
Scope Expansion : Merge narrow requirements into broader, more comprehensive specificationsQuality Enhancement : Combine basic requirements with enhanced quality attributesContext Integration : Merge requirements while preserving important contextual variationsTraceability Preservation : Maintain links to all original sources during consolidation
Variation Preservation Rules :
Platform Differences : Preserve platform-specific requirements (mobile vs desktop vs web)Regional Variations : Maintain region-specific compliance or business rule differencesUser Role Differences : Keep role-specific requirement variations intactImplementation Phases : Preserve requirements that apply to different implementation phases
6. Unified Specification Generation
Content Organization Strategy :
Hierarchical Structure : Organize by business domain, then functional area, then specific requirementsCross-Cutting Concerns : Handle quality attributes, security, and performance as cross-cutting themesDependencies and Relationships : Clearly document requirement dependencies and interaction patternsPrioritization Integration : Integrate priority levels and phasing information into unified structure
Quality Standards for Unified Output :
Consistency : Uniform terminology, formatting, and specification patternsCompleteness : All original requirement intent preserved and addressedClarity : Clear, unambiguous language accessible to all stakeholdersTestability : All requirements specified in testable, verifiable termsTraceability : Complete mapping between unified requirements and original sources
Format Optimization :
Stakeholder-Specific Views : Generate different views optimized for different stakeholder needsMachine Processing : Provide structured formats suitable for automated processingReview Workflows : Optimize format for stakeholder review and approval processesIntegration Ready : Format suitable for integration with project planning and development tools
Integration Points
Upstream Skills :
requirements-ingest: Process and normalize individual requirement sources before merginggoals-extract: Business objectives inform conflict resolution priorities and decisionsprocess-w5h: Stakeholder analysis guides conflict escalation and resolution workflowsdomain-extractconcepts: Domain terminology consistency supports merge quality
Downstream Skills :
process-scopemin: Unified requirements feed into scope minimization and MVP planningproject-planning-tracking: Conflict resolution timelines integrate with overall project schedulesdiagram-generatecollaboration: Unified requirements inform system interaction modelingchange-management: Requirement changes and conflict resolutions trigger change management
Collaboration Skills :
domain-alignentities: Ensure merged requirements maintain domain architecture consistencyproject-status-reporting: Merge progress and conflict resolution status feed into project reportingproject-document-management: Unified specifications integrate with project documentation structure
Quality Assurance
Validation Checklist
Merge Completeness :
Conflict Resolution Quality :
Specification Quality :
Stakeholder Workflow :
Success Metrics
Process Effectiveness :
Merge completion time (target: 2-5 business days for typical projects)
Conflict resolution rate (target: >90% within initial stakeholder review cycle)
Stakeholder approval rate for unified specifications (target: >95%)
Requirement traceability accuracy (target: 100% traceable)
Quality Outcomes :
Reduction in downstream requirement clarification requests (target: >70% reduction)
Stakeholder satisfaction with unified specification quality (target: >90% satisfaction)
Development team clarity on requirements (target: <5% implementation questions)
Post-implementation requirement change rate (target: <10% post-merge changes)
Business Impact :
Requirements phase duration optimization (target: 20-30% time reduction)
Development velocity improvement due to requirement clarity
Stakeholder alignment and conflict reduction in subsequent project phases
Project risk reduction through early conflict identification and resolution
This skill provides comprehensive requirements merging capabilities that enable complex multi-stakeholder projects to achieve unified, coherent requirement specifications while maintaining stakeholder alignment and project governance standards.
**Confidence Level**
### Enhanced Requirements (Source Conflicts Resolved)
#### R-003: API Response Performance [CONFLICT RESOLVED]
**Unified Requirement**
**Conflict Resolution**
-
-
-
**Resolution Method**
**Stakeholder Decision**
**Confidence Level**
#### R-004: Mobile Platform Support [VARIATION PRESERVED]
**Unified Requirement**
**Source Variations**
-
-
-
**Resolution Method**
**Confidence Level**
### New Requirements (Source Additions)
#### R-005: Accessibility Compliance
**Unified Requirement**
**Source Traceability**
**Addition Rationale**
**Confidence Level**
## Conflict Resolution Log
### Resolved Conflicts
#### Conflict CR-001: Authentication Method
**Conflict Description**
**Sources Involved**
-
-
-
**Resolution**
**Stakeholder Approval**
**Impact Assessment**
#### Conflict CR-002: Data Retention Period
**Conflict Description**
**Sources Involved**
-
-
-
**Resolution**
**Stakeholder Approval**
**Impact Assessment**
### Pending Conflicts (Stakeholder Review Required)
#### Conflict CR-003: Deployment Architecture
**Conflict Description**
**Sources Involved**
**Business Impact**
**Escalation Level**
**Review Deadline**
**Interim Solution**
## Redundancy Analysis
### Eliminated Redundancies
**Performance Requirements**
**Security Specifications**
**Integration Requirements**
### Preserved Variations
**Regional Compliance**
**User Interface Variants**
**Integration Protocols**
## Quality Metrics
### Merge Statistics
-
**Total Input Requirements**
-
**Unified Output Requirements**
-
**Conflicts Identified**
-
**Automatic Resolution**
-
**Stakeholder Resolution**
-
**Traceability Coverage**
### Validation Results
-
**Completeness Check**
-
**Consistency Check**
-
**Traceability Audit**
-
**Stakeholder Approval**
## Stakeholder Review Workflow
### Review Process
1.
**Conflict Identification**
2.
**Impact Assessment**
3.
**Stakeholder Notification**
4.
**Resolution Discussion**
5.
**Decision Documentation**
6.
**Approval Tracking**
### Approval Status
-
**Technical Architecture Team**
-
**Business Stakeholders**
-
**Legal/Compliance Team**
-
**Project Management**
### Next Actions
1.
**Schedule architecture review board meeting**
2.
**Finalize deployment architecture decision**
3.
**Update project timeline**
4.
**Generate final approved requirements specification**
## Traceability Matrix
**Review Status**
**Approval Deadline**
**Final Specification**
}
]
,
"merge_strategy"
:
"comprehensive"
,
"skill_version"
:
"1.0.0"
}
,
"merge_summary"
:
{
"total_input_requirements"
:
73
,
"unified_output_requirements"
:
47
,
"consolidation_efficiency"
:
0.35
,
"conflicts_identified"
:
8
,
"conflicts_auto_resolved"
:
3
,
"conflicts_stakeholder_resolved"
:
5
,
"traceability_coverage"
:
1.0
}
,
"unified_requirements"
:
[
{
"id"
:
"R-001"
,
"text"
:
"System shall authenticate users using multi-factor authentication within 3 seconds"
,
"category"
:
"core"
,
"merge_type"
:
"enhancement"
,
"confidence_level"
:
"high"
,
"stakeholder_status"
:
"approved"
,
"source_traceability"
:
[
{
"source_file"
:
"requirements-v1.md"
,
"original_id"
:
"R-003"
,
"original_text"
:
"System shall authenticate users within 3 seconds"
,
"contribution"
:
"baseline_requirement"
}
,
{
"source_file"
:
"stakeholder-feedback.docx"
,
"original_id"
:
"SF-012"
,
"original_text"
:
"Must support multi-factor authentication"
,
"contribution"
:
"security_enhancement"
}
]
}
]
,
"conflicts"
:
[
{
"id"
:
"CR-001"
,
"description"
:
"Authentication method disagreement"
,
"status"
:
"pending"
,
"business_impact"
:
"medium"
,
"technical_impact"
:
"medium"
,
"escalation_level"
:
"architecture_review_board"
,
"sources_involved"
:
[
{
"source"
:
"requirements-v1.md"
,
"position"
:
"OAuth2 preference"
,
"rationale"
:
"Industry standard, developer familiarity"
}
,
{
"source"
:
"stakeholder-feedback.docx"
,
"position"
:
"SAML required"
,
"rationale"
:
"Enterprise integration requirements"
}
]
,
"proposed_resolution"
:
"Multi-protocol support implementation"
,
"resolution_timeline"
:
"2026-02-20"
}
]
,
"redundancy_analysis"
:
{
"eliminated_redundancies"
:
[
{
"category"
:
"performance"
,
"original_count"
:
12
,
"consolidated_count"
:
4
,
"consolidation_method"
:
"metric_unification"
}
]
,
"preserved_variations"
:
[
{
"category"
:
"regional_compliance"
,
"reason"
:
"different_implementation_approaches"
,
"variation_count"
:
3
}
]
}
,
"quality_metrics"
:
{
"completeness_check"
:
true
,
"consistency_check"
:
true
,
"traceability_audit"
:
true
,
"stakeholder_approval_rate"
:
0.85
}
,
"stakeholder_workflow"
:
{
"approvals"
:
[
{
"team"
:
"technical_architecture"
,
"status"
:
"approved"
,
"approval_date"
:
"2026-02-14T16:00:00Z"
}
,
{
"team"
:
"business_stakeholders"
,
"status"
:
"partial"
,
"pending_items"
:
[
"performance_conflicts"
]
,
"review_deadline"
:
"2026-02-18T17:00:00Z"
}
]
,
"pending_actions"
:
[
{
"action"
:
"schedule_architecture_review"
,
"deadline"
:
"2026-02-17T12:00:00Z"
,
"responsible"
:
"solution_architect"
}
]
}
}
**Impact Level**
**MEDIUM**
**Conflict Description**
**Review Required By**
**Deadline**
## Medium Priority Conflicts (Team Lead Resolution)
### CR-004: User Interface Framework Selection
**Impact Level**
**MEDIUM**
**Resolution Needed By**
**Assigned To**
### CR-005: Database Architecture Pattern
**Impact Level**
**MEDIUM**
**Resolution Needed By**
**Assigned To**
## Low Priority Conflicts (Automatic Resolution Applied)
### CR-006: Logging Framework Choice ✅ **RESOLVED**
**Resolution**
**Approved By**
### CR-007: Code Style Standards ✅ **RESOLVED**
**Resolution**
**Approved By**
### CR-008: Testing Coverage Requirements ✅ **RESOLVED**
**Resolution**
**Approved By**
## Stakeholder Action Items
### Immediate Actions Required (Next 48 Hours)
1.
**Schedule executive architecture decision meeting**
2.
**Prepare cost analysis for deployment options**
3.
**Complete security impact assessment for authentication options**
### This Week Actions
4.
**Frontend framework prototype evaluation**
5.
**Database performance benchmarking**
6.
**Compile stakeholder preference surveys**
### Next Week Actions
7.
**Final conflict resolution documentation**
8.
**Updated project timeline with resolution impacts**
9.
**Stakeholder sign-off on unified requirements**
**Next Review Meeting**
**Escalation Contact**
**Documentation Status**
