本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

requirements

Turns a feature request into a full implementation-plan requirements document matching docs/plan/_TEMPLATE.md. Use when the user asks for requirements, a spec, an implementation plan, or wants to flesh out a feature before building. Also use for /requirements or "write requirements for X".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB
  • references/checklist.md2.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Requirements

Turn a user request into a complete Lextures implementation plan — the same structure and rigor as docs/plan/.

Output

Produce a markdown document that follows docs/plan/_TEMPLATE.md exactly. Every section must be filled; no … or TBD placeholders unless listed explicitly in Open Questions (§18).

Default: paste the full document in chat. If the user asks to save it, write to docs/plan/{section-folder}/{id}-{kebab-slug}.md per docs/plan/README.md conventions.

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track progress:

Requirements progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Parse the request
- [ ] Step 2: Explore codebase & existing plans
- [ ] Step 3: Draft metadata
- [ ] Step 4: Write all 19 sections
- [ ] Step 5: Validate against checklist

Step 1. Parse the request

Extract from the user's message:

  • Feature name — short, descriptive title
  • Scope — what they want; what they explicitly excluded
  • Audience — K12 / HE / SL (self-learner) / platform-wide
  • Urgency signals — blocker vs enhancement, pilot vs GA

If critical details are missing (audience, scope boundary, or whether this is net-new vs extending existing behavior), ask one focused question before proceeding. Otherwise state your interpretation briefly and continue.

Step 2. Explore codebase & existing plans

Before writing requirements, ground the spec in what exists:

  1. Read docs/plan/_TEMPLATE.md for the canonical section list.
  2. Search docs/plan/ for related plans — read 1–2 closest matches for tone, cross-references, and dependency patterns.
  3. Search docs/completed/ if the feature may partially exist.
  4. Explore the codebase — Glob/Grep/Read for:
    • Existing routes, services, DB tables, UI pages that overlap
    • Patterns to extend (auth scopes, job queue, feature flags, migrations)
    • File paths to cite in §19 References

Record findings: what is MISSING, PARTIAL, or THIN today (for metadata Status).

Step 3. Draft metadata

Fill the metadata table. Propose values when the user did not supply them:

FieldGuidance
Feature ID{section}.{number} — match an existing docs/plan/ section when possible; otherwise propose next number in the closest section
SectionTop-level plan folder name (e.g. Platform, Performance & Operability)
SeverityBLOCKER / MAJOR / MINOR per docs/plan/README.md legend
MarketsK12 / HE / SL — comma-separated
Status (today)MISSING / PARTIAL / THIN based on codebase exploration
Estimated effortXS / S / M / L / XL
Depends on / UnblocksFeature IDs from related plans; use relative links

Title line format:

# {Feature ID} — {Feature Name}

> Implementation plan. Source: user request / {related doc if any}.

Step 4. Write all 19 sections

Follow the template section-by-section. Quality bar matches completed plans like 17.14-feature-flags.md and 19.3-ai-assisted-grading.md.

§1 Problem Statement — 2–4 sentences. Gap today, who is hurt, business outcome.

§2 Goals — 3–5 outcome bullets. Verifiable, not implementation steps.

§3 Non-Goals — Explicit out-of-scope items. Reference other Feature IDs when deferring work.

§4 Personas & User Stories — As a {role}, I want … so that …. Cover student, instructor, admin, and self-learner where relevant.

§5 Functional Requirements — Numbered FR-N. RFC 2119: MUST / SHOULD / MAY. Testable, not vague.

§6 Non-Functional Requirements — Cover applicable sub-bullets from the template (performance, security, privacy, a11y, scalability, reliability, observability, maintainability, i18n, backward compatibility). Omit sub-bullets that genuinely do not apply; say "N/A" with one-line rationale.

§7 Acceptance Criteria — Numbered AC-N. Given/When/Then. Each AC should map to at least one test.

§8 Data Model — SQL or schema description. Migration naming: server/migrations/NNN_*.sql. Indexes, constraints, backfill strategy.

§9 API Surface — Table or list: method, path, auth scope, request/response shapes. Note rate limits and OpenAPI updates.

§10 UI / UX — Pages, components, flows, empty/loading/error states, responsive behavior, a11y notes, i18n keys.

§11 AI / ML Considerations — Skip entirely (write "N/A — not AI-touching.") only when the feature has zero AI/LLM/ML involvement. Otherwise: models, prompts, eval metrics, fallback, PII, cost budget.

§12 Integration Points — External services and internal modules with file paths.

§13 Dependencies & Sequencing — Must ship after/before; shared infra (Redis, job queue, object storage, etc.).

§14 Risks & Mitigations — Table: Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation.

§15 Rollout Plan — Feature flag name, phases, pilot cohort, GA criteria, rollback path.

§16 Test Plan — Unit, integration, e2e (Playwright), security, accessibility (axe), performance/load, manual QA.

§17 Documentation & Training — User docs, admin docs, API reference, runbooks.

§18 Open Questions — Numbered decisions still needing owners. Only place for unresolved TBDs.

§19 References — Existing code paths (server/internal/..., clients/web/src/...), external standards, related plans as relative links.

Lextures-specific defaults

When the spec touches these areas, align with repo conventions (see AGENTS.md):

  • Backend: Go API, Chi router, pgx, JWT auth, server/internal/
  • Frontend: React 19, Vite, TypeScript, Tailwind v4, clients/web/src/
  • Migrations: server/migrations/NNN_descriptive_name.sql
  • Auth: Note JWT scope and role checks on every new route
  • Jobs: Background work via RabbitMQ queue (or in-process fallback locally)
  • Feature flags: Reference OpenFeature-style flags and platformstate when rollout-sensitive
  • Compliance: FERPA for student data; WCAG 2.1 AA for new UI; COPPA for K12 minors

Step 5. Validate

Before delivering, verify every item in references/checklist.md. Fix gaps before presenting.

Delivery format

Present the document in this order:

  1. Summary (3–5 bullets) — what the feature does, severity, effort, key dependencies
  2. Full requirements document — complete markdown, all 19 sections
  3. Suggested next steps — only if useful: save path, related plans to read, open questions needing user input

Examples

User: "Write requirements for instructor bulk email to enrolled students"

Agent: Explores server/internal/ for messaging/email modules and docs/plan/06-communication-collaboration/. Produces a full 19-section plan with FRs for opt-out compliance, rate limits, and audit logging.

User: "Requirements for adding dark mode to the student dashboard"

Agent: Finds existing theme/CSS variables in clients/web/. Status = PARTIAL if theme tokens exist. Non-goals reference system-preference-only scope. ACs cover persistence, contrast ratios, and no flash on load.

Additional resources

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Skeptical analysis and critique of claims, plans, and code without taking anyone at face value. Use when the user says "don't trust me", wants adversarial review, red-teaming, assumption checking, or verification that generated or proposed code is actually correct. Triggers on skepticism, critique everything, verify claims, challenge assumptions, red team, devil's advocate, prove it, smell test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

fix-ci

無料

Find failing PR checks, inspect logs or external check links, and apply focused fixes

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

Resolve merge conflicts non-interactively, validate build and tests, and finalize conflict resolution

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

Fetch and summarize review comments from the active pull request

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

how

無料

Use for "how does X work", code walkthroughs before changing something, and placement / ownership / layering questions ("where should this live", "which package owns this", "is this the right layer"). Explains subsystem architecture, runtime flow, onboarding mental models. Can critique architecture. Use why for motivation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

implement

無料

Implements a new planned feature

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

StudyDrift/lextures622026年10月10日 更新

StudyDrift のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する