Menú
Define verification methods and evidence artifacts for requirements.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
Convert ISO spec requirements (StR, FR, NFR) into a TDD-based project plan with dependency analysis, parallel execution tracks, quality gates, and task decomposition. Selects or starts a plan and writes a frontmatter-typed plan bundle under plan/<Plan-id>-<slug>/ (Plan + Task + index + log).
Create or update spec artifacts from a design or change request. Orchestrates authoring each requested requirement type (StR/US/FR/NFR/IT) as a discrete file using quoin catalog templates and Quire validation.
Analyze requirement statements (FR/NFR/StR) for EARS requirement-grammar conformance and author a SpecReview of the findings.
Build and maintain the requirements Test Matrix ensuring 100% coverage.
Review requirements for quality, consistency, and completeness.
Verify a targeted plan is complete and validated — every task done, the Test Matrix backed by real tracking tags in tests, and code fully traced to spec (flagging underspecified code with no owning requirement). Optional semantic review checks that intent↔test↔code actually agree. Emits a quire-validated SpecReview artifact to reviews/YY-MM-DD-<slug>.md.
| name | spec-evidence-analysis |
| description | Define verification methods and evidence artifacts for requirements. |
Make sure every requirement has a defined verification method and a concrete artifact that proves it was verified.
spec-matrix builds the test matrix.spec-review when "how do we know this is satisfied?" is unclear.| Method | Use when |
|---|---|
test | The requirement is exercisable by automated or manual test execution. Default. |
analysis | The requirement is proven by calculation, modeling, or static reasoning (e.g. complexity bound, cryptographic argument). |
inspection | The requirement is satisfied by visual or structural review of the artifact (e.g. license headers, doc presence). |
demonstration | The requirement is satisfied by observing operation in a realistic environment without instrumentation (e.g. UX flow walkthrough). |
| Artifact | Pairs with |
|---|---|
test_case | test — points to a TC-XXX file or test path |
analysis_report | analysis — points to a doc/notebook |
inspection_checklist | inspection — points to a checklist file |
demo_recording | demonstration — points to a recording or scripted walkthrough |
metric | any — observability metric that proves runtime behavior |
log | any — log event proving the path executed |
Rule: Every implementation task MUST cite at least one evidence artifact. A task with no evidence is unfinishable.
verification_method and evidence fields in its frontmatter.test, the matching test case must already exist or be queued in spec-matrix.analysis/inspection/demonstration, name the artifact path explicitly. No "TBD".Per-requirement frontmatter (add to existing FR/StR/NFR files):
verification_method: test # test | analysis | inspection | demonstration
evidence:
- kind: test_case
ref: tests/integration/test_login.py::test_invalid_credentials
- kind: metric
ref: auth_failure_total
Summary deliverable in spec/analysis/evidence.md:
# Verification & Evidence Summary
| Req | Method | Artifact |
|-----|--------|----------|
| FR-003 | test | tests/integration/test_login.py::test_login_happy_path |
| FR-010 | analysis | docs/analysis/storage-bound.md |
| NFR-002 | demonstration | docs/demos/uptime-walkthrough.md |
| NFR-005 | test + metric | tests/perf/test_p99_latency.py, metric `http_request_duration_seconds` |
## Open gaps
None.
verification_method and at least one evidence entry.evidence: TBD, no missing refs.spec-to-plan is invoked.