requirement-enhancer — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited requirement-enhancer (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Transform initial requirements into clear, complete, actionable specifications through iterative analysis and refinement.
Analyze the requirement across multiple dimensions:
Clarity: Identify vague terms, ambiguous language, undefined metrics Completeness: Find missing functional/non-functional requirements, edge cases Consistency: Detect conflicts, contradictions, terminology issues Feasibility: Note technical concerns, resource constraints Testability: Check for measurable acceptance criteria
Categorize issues by severity:
🔴 Critical: Core functionality undefined, conflicting requirements 🟡 Important: Missing constraints, unclear scope, vague metrics 🟢 Minor: Terminology inconsistencies, formatting issues
Ask targeted clarification questions:
For ambiguity: "What exactly does [vague term] mean in measurable terms?" For incompleteness: "What should happen when [edge case]?" For conflicts: "How do requirements X and Y work together?" For missing details: "What are the [performance/security/usability] requirements?"
Use the AskUserQuestion tool to present questions clearly.
Based on user answers:
Add standard practices when applicable:
For authentication: Password requirements, session management, rate limiting For APIs: Error codes, versioning, rate limits, documentation For data processing: Validation, error handling, performance bounds For web apps: Browser compatibility, accessibility, security (OWASP)
Label enrichments as [STANDARD PRACTICE] or [BEST PRACTICE].
Organize enhanced requirement in clear sections:
## [Requirement Name]
### Overview
[Brief description preserving original intent]
### Functional Requirements
[Detailed functional requirements with IDs]
### Non-Functional Requirements
[Performance, security, usability, etc.]
### Acceptance Criteria
[Testable criteria in Given/When/Then format]
### Assumptions
[Explicit list of assumptions with labels]
### Edge Cases
[Identified edge cases and expected behavior]
### Constraints
[Technical, business, regulatory constraints]
### Out of Scope
[Explicitly excluded items]For detailed analysis dimensions and patterns, see analysis_framework.md.
Key areas to analyze:
Vague: "The system should be fast" Enhanced: "The system MUST respond within 200ms for 95% of requests"
Vague: "The system should support users" Enhanced: "The system MUST support at least 10,000 concurrent users"
Vague: "Users can edit documents" Enhanced: "Authenticated users with 'Editor' role can modify content of documents they own"
Vague: "Backup data regularly" Enhanced: "Perform incremental backups every 6 hours, full backups daily at 2 AM UTC"
Vague: "If user is inactive, log them out" Enhanced: "After 30 min inactivity, warn user. After 35 min total, save work and log out"
What the system must do:
How the system must perform:
Testable conditions for requirement satisfaction:
[CONFIRMED]: User explicitly confirmed[ASSUMED]: Reasonable assumption, needs confirmation[INFERRED]: Logical deduction from confirmed facts[STANDARD PRACTICE]: Industry-standard approach[BEST PRACTICE]: Recommended approachMUST: Mandatory, non-negotiableSHOULD: Highly desired, may be deferredMAY: Optional, nice-to-haveMUST NOT: Explicitly forbiddenStructure enhanced requirements as Markdown:
# [Feature/System Name]
## Overview
[Brief description, 2-3 sentences]
## Functional Requirements
### FR-[ID]-001: [Requirement Name]
- **Priority**: MUST/SHOULD/MAY
- **Description**: [Detailed description]
- **Acceptance Criteria**:
- Given [precondition]
- When [action]
- Then [expected result]
## Non-Functional Requirements
### NFR-[ID]-001: [Category]
- **Priority**: MUST/SHOULD/MAY
- **Description**: [Specific requirement with metrics]
- **Measurement**: [How to verify]
## Assumptions
- [CONFIRMED] [User-confirmed assumption]
- [ASSUMED] [Reasonable assumption needing confirmation]
- [INFERRED] [Logical deduction]
## Edge Cases
- **[Scenario]**: [Expected behavior]
## Constraints
- [Technical/business/regulatory constraints]
## Out of Scope
- [Explicitly excluded features or functionality]Before finalizing, verify:
✓ All critical ambiguities resolved ✓ Functional and non-functional requirements specified ✓ Acceptance criteria are testable ✓ Assumptions explicitly labeled ✓ Edge cases identified ✓ Constraints documented ✓ Priority levels assigned ✓ Original intent preserved
For complete before/after examples including:
See examples.md.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.