SKILL DETAIL
requirements-analysis-plus(EN)
Use this skill when you need to parse Word/HTML/JSON/Markdown/Excel requirements and produce a structured analysis; triggers include requirements analysis plus and requirement document parsing.
StatusStable
TypeAtomic Skill
DomainSoftware testing
SDLCTest design
Good forQA / BA / PM
LanguageChinese / English
EvalsEvals ✓
Synced2026-09-15
Why this Skill
It turns this Skill's method into a quality input that can be executed, reviewed, and reused.
- Need deeper requirement analysis across multiple source documents.
- Prioritize by risk / business impact — do not treat everything equally.
- Separate confirmed facts from current assumptions.
- Do not invent endpoints, fields, environments, or root causes the user did not provide.
- Do not pretend completeness when scope/context is missing.
When to use
Use this Skill
- Need deeper requirement analysis across multiple source documents.
- Need stronger prioritization, conflict checks, and follow-up questions than the base version.
Common pitfalls
- Do not pretend completeness when scope/context is missing.
- Do not treat every item as equally important.
- Do not skip assumptions and information gaps.
- Do not dump generic theory unrelated to the current toolchain.
Input
Minimum Input
- The current task scope, objective, and subject under review.
Recommended Input
- Before producing output, read and follow prompts/requirements-analysis-plus.md (minimum coverage, output structure, quality bar).
- When a ready-made template fits: use matching files under output-templates/.
- When the user wants examples or alignment with existing assets: read relevant examples/.
- For deep framework/troubleshoot/schema notes: read only the relevant file(s) under references/, do not load the whole directory.
Optional Context
- For format conversion or helper checks: prefer existing scripts/ over reinventing.
- For evaluating/regressing this skill: use evals/ with skill-up.
Output
The output follows this Skill's method and makes facts, assumptions, risks, and next steps explicit.
Judge the output value before installing
- 01Followed the main prompt's output structure
- 02Minimum coverage focus: source alignment, scope summary, conflicts and inconsistencies, missing rules, testability risks, dependency impacts, business impact, priority by risk, ... (details in main prompt)
- 03Covered the minimum checklist, or explained omissions
- 04High-risk items have explicit priority
View full output structure
- 05Did not invent details the user did not provide
- 06Assumptions and gaps are marked
- 07Findings, risks, and open questions that use role reports retain their source roles
- 08Optional role reports did not become prerequisites and no role Skill internal file was linked
How It Works
- 01Read and follow the main prompt listed under Progressive disclosure (coverage, structure, quality bar).
- 02Direct requirement materials remain sufficient for standalone use. If the user supplies role reports with a declared source_role, treat them as optional composition inputs and never require installing a role Skill.
- 03Add only project context that changes the result: scope, environment, constraints, risks, dependencies, expected deliverable.
- 04If input is incomplete, return a usable first draft and explicitly mark assumptions and gaps.
- 05Default to Markdown; switch formats only when the user asks.
Install & Quick Start
Install command / SHELL
npx skills add \
https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/requirements-analysis-plus
-grequirements-analysis-plus.prompt
@skill requirements-analysis-plus
Using the current project context, produce an actionable result following this Skill.
Additional context:
[Paste project context or requirement]---
name: requirements-analysis-plus
description: Use this skill when you need to parse Word/HTML/JSON/Markdown/Excel requirements and produce a structured analysis; triggers include requirements analysis plus and requirement document parsing.
---
# requirements-analysis-plus (EN)
**Chinese version:** See the corresponding Chinese skill.
## When to Use
- Need deeper requirement analysis across multiple source documents.
- Need stronger prioritization, conflict checks, and follow-up questions than the base version.
## Workflow
1. Read and follow the main prompt listed under Progressive disclosure (coverage, structure, quality bar).
2. Direct requirement materials remain sufficient for standalone use. If the user supplies role reports with a declared `source_role`, treat them as optional composition inputs and never require installing a role Skill.
3. Add only project context that changes the result: scope, environment, constraints, risks, dependencies, expected deliverable.
4. If input is incomplete, return a usable first draft and explicitly mark assumptions and gaps.
5. Default to Markdown; switch formats only when the user asks.
## Core Constraints
- Prioritize by risk / business impact — do not treat everything equally.
- Separate confirmed facts from current assumptions.
- Do not invent endpoints, fields, environments, or root causes the user did not provide.
- When using a fact, view, risk, or question from a role report, preserve its source-role attribution item by item; never present a role view as a primary requirement fact or anonymous consensus.
- Consume only report content supplied by the user; do not read, link to, or depend on another role Skill's internal files.
- Keep output executable: concrete scenarios, clear priority, clear next steps.
## Progressive Disclosure
- Before producing output, read and follow `prompts/requirements-analysis-plus.md` (minimum coverage, output structure, quality bar).
- When a ready-made template fits: use matching files under `output-templates/`.
- When the user wants examples or alignment with existing assets: read relevant `examples/`.
- For deep framework/troubleshoot/schema notes: read only the relevant file(s) under `references/`, do not load the whole directory.
- For format conversion or helper checks: prefer existing `scripts/` over reinventing.
- For evaluating/regressing this skill: use `evals/` with skill-up.
## Pre-delivery Checklist
- [ ] Followed the main prompt's output structure
- [ ] Minimum coverage focus: source alignment, scope summary, conflicts and inconsistencies, missing rules, testability risks, dependency impacts, business impact, priority by risk, ... (details in main prompt)
- [ ] Covered the minimum checklist, or explained omissions
- [ ] High-risk items have explicit priority
- [ ] Did not invent details the user did not provide
- [ ] Assumptions and gaps are marked
- [ ] Findings, risks, and open questions that use role reports retain their source roles
- [ ] Optional role reports did not become prerequisites and no role Skill internal file was linked
## Common Pitfalls
- Do not pretend completeness when scope/context is missing.
- Do not treat every item as equally important.
- Do not skip assumptions and information gaps.
- Do not dump generic theory unrelated to the current toolchain.