メニュー
[Project Management] Use when creating user stories, writing acceptance criteria, analyzing requirements, or mapping business processes.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill business-analystコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
[Architecture] Use when designing solution architecture across backend, frontend, deployment, monitoring, testing, and code quality.
[Utilities] Use when you need to answer technical and architectural questions.
[Content] Use when you need to brainstorm as a PO/BA — structured ideation for problem-solving, new product creation, or feature enhancement.
SKILL.md を表示中
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | business-analyst |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | [Project Management] Use when creating user stories, writing acceptance criteria, analyzing requirements, or mapping business processes. |
Goal: Refine requirements into actionable user stories with BDD acceptance criteria and business rule traceability.
Workflow:
Key Rules:
docs/specs/ before creating new onesstory_points and complexity in all PBI/story outputsdocs/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)Help Business Analysts refine requirements into actionable user stories with clear acceptance criteria using BDD format.
When refining domain-related PBIs, automatically extract and reference existing business rules.
Dynamic Discovery:
Glob("docs/specs/{module}/*.md") for feature docsGlob("docs/specs/{module}/**/*.md") for nested featuresFrom PBI frontmatter or module detection:
module fieldrelated_features listFrom feature doc "Business Rules" section:
BR-{MOD}-XXX: DescriptionBR-GRO-001: Goals must have measurable success criteriaInclude 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}
Target 8-12K tokens total (validated decision: prefer completeness):
When refining domain-related PBIs, investigate related entities using feature docs.
Glob("docs/specs/{module}/*.md")
Select file matching feature from PBI context.
From ## Domain Model section (Section 5):
Entity : BaseClassProperty: TypeNavigationProperty: List<Related>Property: Type (computed: logic)From ## File Locations section:
From ## Key Expressions section:
Include entity context:
## Entity Context
**Primary:** {Entity} - {description}
**Related:** {Entity1}, {Entity2}
**Key Queries:** {ExpressionName}
**Source:** {path}
This ensures implementation uses correct entities and patterns.
As a {user role/persona}
I want {goal/desire}
So that {benefit/value}
Scenario: {Descriptive title}
Given {precondition/context}
And {additional context}
When {action/trigger}
And {additional action}
Then {expected outcome}
And {additional verification}
For Project Domain:
[Source: namespace/service/id] abstract-anchor format — never physical code coordinates or repository-root paths (stack-portable; see shared/tc-format.md)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]
BR-{MOD}-{NNN}: {Rule name}
IF {condition}
THEN {action/result}
ELSE {alternative}
Evidence: [Source: rule/{service}/{RuleName}]
Before finalizing user story:
[Source: namespace/service/id]) — no physical code coordinates or repository-root pathsAdd 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.
When user runs /refine {idea-file}:
team-artifacts/pbis/When user runs /story {pbi-file}:
team-artifacts/pbis/stories/---
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}
Applies to Writes under
team-artifacts/pbis/andteam-artifacts/pbis/stories/.
{YYMMDD}-ba-{type}-{slug}.mdteam-artifacts/pbis/ → Template .claude/docs/team-artifacts/templates/pbi-template.md · Context: PBI CREATION — GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format required, INVEST criteria, numeric priority.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.- [ ] User story format correct · - [ ] 3+ scenarios (positive, negative, edge) · - [ ] GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format · - [ ] INVEST criteria met
{YYMMDD}-ba-story-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-ba-requirements-{slug}.md
FR-{MOD}-{NNN} (e.g., FR-GROW-001)NFR-{MOD}-{NNN}BR-{MOD}-{NNN}AC-{NNN} per story/PBITC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} (e.g., TC-GM-001)Before completing BA artifacts:
Every refinement must end with a validation interview.
After completing user story or PBI refinement, conduct validation to:
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?" |
Add to user story/PBI:
## Validation Summary
**Validated:** {date}
### Confirmed Decisions
- {decision}: {user choice}
### Concerns Raised
- {concern}: {resolution}
### Action Items
- [ ] {follow-up if any}
This step is NOT optional - always validate before marking refinement complete.
[IMPORTANT] Use
TaskCreateto 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):
Thought N/M: [aspect]— one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertaintyThought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ...— when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / ImpactThought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ...— explore alternative; converge with decision rationaleThought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ...then[VERIFICATION]: ...— test before actingThought 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-thinkingskill (.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.
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.