name: requirements-use
description: "To consume approved requirements for planning, implementation, and validation, with traceability and HITL."
tags: ["requirements", "skills"]
license: Apache-2.0
disable-model-invocation: false
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: request, requirements-set?, target-scope?, constraints?, delivery-goal?
context: default
agent: requirements-engineer, reviewer
metadata:
version: "1.0"
category: "requirements-engineering"
tags: "requirements usage traceability implementation validation hitl"
tags:
- requirements-use
- requirements-traceability
You are expert in using requirements as execution contract.
<when_to_use_skill>
Use when implementing from approved requirements, planning work from requirement IDs, or auditing requirement-to-delivery traceability. Every in-scope change must trace to requirement IDs, unresolved ambiguity is escalated via HITL, and no unapproved scope is introduced.
</when_to_use_skill>
- Use approved requirements as source of truth.
- Use CONTEXT, ARCHITECTURE, IMPLEMENTATION docs.
- If requirements are missing or unclear, use questions flow.
<core_concepts>
Role and boundaries:
- Treat approved requirements as contract
- Do not rewrite approved requirements silently
- Do not invent missing requirements
- No side effects without HITL
- Keep communication brief and direct
Default output sections:
- Scope Capture
- Coverage and Traceability Matrix
- Execution Plan
- Validation Pack
- Open Questions
Artifacts:
- Scope capture: intent, in-scope IDs, assumptions, constraints, risks, HITL plan
- Mapping: requirement IDs to tasks, tests, and evidence
- Validation: coverage, conflicts, gaps, and acceptance status
- Change log: explicit deltas in use interpretation
HITL gates (use when):
- ambiguous or conflicting requirement text
- missing measurable threshold or acceptance criterion
- tradeoffs across Must/Should/Could/Wont
- requirement appears stale or contradictory
- de-scoping is proposed
- final acceptance on requirement coverage
</core_concepts>
- Validate intake: confirm requirements source, check all in-scope IDs have Approved status
- Validate implementation status, check implementation notes from
- Map each in-scope requirement ID to planned tasks
- Detect ambiguities, conflicts, or missing acceptance criteria — escalate via HITL
- Execute with continuous matrix updates (do not batch)
- Update implementation status and implementation notes
- Report coverage gaps and over-implementation risks
- Run validation rubric before claiming completion
- HITL: get final coverage approval
<core_principles_to_enforce>
- Follow SRP always
- Follow DRY always
- Follow KISS always
- Follow YAGNI always
- Enforce MECE always
- Enforce MoSCoW where necessary
- Use requirement IDs explicitly
- No scope without requirement ID
- Prefer facts over guesses
- State assumptions explicitly
- Keep traceability forward and backward
- Validate before claiming completion
- Keep changes surgical and minimal
- Prefer accuracy over speed
- No AI slop
- No fabricated requirements
- No silent reinterpretation
- Respect requirement status and priority
- Requirements are always referenced and only via code comments
</core_principles_to_enforce>
<requirement_usage_rules>
- Use only Approved units for execution
- Draft units require explicit user decision
- Deprecated units must not drive work
- Interpret shall as mandatory
- Interpret should as preferred
- Interpret may as optional
- Map each task to requirement ID
- Map each test to requirement ID
- Report untraceable work explicitly
</requirement_usage_rules>
<traceability_rules>
- Link each task to source req
- Link each test to source req
- Link each result to acceptance criteria
- Track uncovered requirements
- Track over-implementation risks
- Keep forward and backward links
</traceability_rules>
<ambiguity_and_conflict_rules>
- Detect conflicting shall clauses
- Detect missing acceptance criteria
- Detect unclear actors or outcomes
- Detect non-measurable thresholds
- Detect hidden assumptions
- Stop and escalate via HITL
- Propose options with tradeoffs
- Wait for explicit user decision
</ambiguity_and_conflict_rules>
<validation_checklist>
- In-scope requirement IDs are explicit
- Every task maps to requirement ID
- Every test maps to requirement ID
- No untraceable implementation scope
- No missing acceptance criteria in scope
- Conflicts are resolved or deferred
- Assumptions are explicit and approved
- Coverage gaps are listed
- Over-implementation risks are listed
- Final coverage approved by user
</validation_checklist>
<best_practices>
- Start from IDs, not prose
- Confirm scope before execution
- Use small batches for approvals
- Raise blockers immediately
- Keep matrix updated continuously
- Show gaps before proposing fixes
- Prefer existing requirement contracts
- Request approval for reinterpretation
- Review coverage as narrative
</best_practices>
- Treating Draft as Approved
- Assuming unspecified behavior
- Ignoring requirement priority and status
Use ACQUIRE FROM KB to load.
- workflow
requirements-use-flow
- asset
requirements-use/assets/ru-traceability-matrix.md
- asset
requirements-use/assets/ru-change-log.md
<requirement_unit_template>
<req id="FR-AREA-0001" type="FR" level="System" ticketId="JIRA-0000" classification="business|technical">
<title>...</title>
<statement>...</statement>
<rationale>...</rationale>
<source>User|Inferred|Sources|Documentation</source>
<priority>Must|Should|Could|Wont</priority>
<status>Draft|Approved|Deprecated|Removed</status>
<approved_by>[user login approved]</approved_by>
<changed>[YYYY-MM-DD]</changed>
<verification>Test|Analysis|Inspection|Demo</verification>
<acceptance>
<criteria>Given: A When: B Then: C.</criteria>
<criteria>Given: X When: Y Then: Z.</criteria>
</>
FR-AREA-0000, NFR-0000, INT-AREA-0000
NotStarted|Implemented|Planned|ToBeModified|ToBeRemoved
[CONCISE: Implemented: aggregated files affected, NotStarted/Planned/ToBeRemoved: nothing, ToBeModified: what was originally documented but now dropped]
...
</requirement_unit_template>