# Requirement Review > Conducts comprehensive requirements review including completeness validation, clarity assessment, consistency checking, testability evaluation, and standards compliance. Produces detailed review reports with findings, gaps, conflicts, and improvement recommendations. Use when reviewing requirements documents (BRD, SRS, user stories), validating acceptance criteria, assessing requirements quality,… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-dauquangthanh-hanoi-rainbow-requirement-review` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [DauQuangThanh](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dauquangthanh) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [DauQuangThanh](https://github.com/DauQuangThanh) - **Source:** https://github.com/DauQuangThanh/hanoi-rainbow/tree/main/skills/requirement-review ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-dauquangthanh-hanoi-rainbow-requirement-review ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Requirement Review Systematically review requirements to validate quality and identify issues before design and development begins. Ensure requirements are complete, clear, consistent, testable, and traceable. ## Review Workflow ## 1. Preparation Gather all relevant documentation: - Requirements documents (BRD, SRS, user stories) - Non-functional requirements and constraints - Requirements Traceability Matrix (if available) - Project context (charter, goals) - Existing acceptance criteria ### 2. Quality Assessment Evaluate each requirement using **six quality attributes**: 1. **Completeness**: All needs captured, no missing details or TBDs, dependencies identified 2. **Clarity**: Unambiguous, specific, no vague terms ("user-friendly", "fast", "easy") 3. **Consistency**: No conflicts, consistent terminology and priorities 4. **Testability**: Verifiable with measurable acceptance criteria and clear pass/fail 5. **Traceability**: Links to business goals, design, and tests 6. **Feasibility**: Technically achievable within constraints (budget, timeline, capability) > **See [quality-checklists.md](references/quality-checklists.md)** for detailed assessment criteria and document-specific checklists ### 3. Issue Identification Identify common requirement problems: **Ambiguous**: "system shall be fast" → Specify measurable criteria: " **See [examples.md](references/examples.md)** for extensive before/after examples ### 4. Quality Scoring Calculate scores for each quality attribute (0-100%): - **90-100%**: Excellent - minimal issues - **75-89%**: Good - minor improvements needed - **60-74%**: Fair - notable gaps exist - **Below 60%**: Poor - major rework required **Overall Quality** = Average of all six attributes **Target**: ≥ 90% for production-readiness ### 5. Report Generation Create structured review report with: **Executive Summary**: Quality rating, recommendation, key strengths (2-3), critical issues (2-3), top actions **Detailed Findings**: Quality scores, issues by severity (Critical/Major/Minor), specific examples with requirement IDs **Action Items**: Prioritized list with owners, due dates, effort estimates, approval conditions > **See [report-templates.md](references/report-templates.md)** for complete report structure and templates ### 6. Recommendations Provide clear decision: - **Approve**: Requirements ≥ 90% quality threshold - **Approve with Conditions**: Critical issues must be resolved before design - **Major Revision**: 60-74% quality - substantial rework required - **Reject**: **See [quality-checklists.md](references/quality-checklists.md)** for document-specific assessment criteria ## Severity Definitions - **Critical**: Blocks progress, must fix immediately (security gaps, fundamental conflicts, missing scope) - **Major**: Significant quality impact, should fix before approval (ambiguous criteria, missing acceptance criteria) - **Minor**: Quality improvements, nice to have (formatting, examples, enhancements) ## Common Anti-Patterns to Flag - **Gold Plating**: Adding unrequested features - **Solution-Focused**: Specifying "how" instead of "what" (requirements should be technology-agnostic) - **Scope Creep**: Accepting changes without change control - **Analysis Paralysis**: Over-perfecting requirements indefinitely - **Weak Acceptance Criteria**: Vague or missing test conditions - **No Traceability**: Requirements disconnected from business goals ## Vague Terms to Replace Always replace with measurable criteria: - "user-friendly", "intuitive", "easy" → Define usability metrics - "fast", "quick", "responsive" → Specify response time targets - "secure" → Define specific security controls - "scalable" → Define capacity and load targets - "reliable" → Define uptime percentage and recovery time ## Standards Compliance - **IEEE 830**: SRS structure and content standards - **INVEST**: User story quality criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable) - **ISO/IEC 25010**: Systems and software quality models - **Industry-Specific**: HIPAA (healthcare), PCI-DSS (payments), SOC 2 (SaaS), FDA (medical devices) > **See [quality-checklists.md](references/quality-checklists.md)** for standards compliance details ## Report Format Generate review reports in this structure: 1. **Executive Summary** (1 page): Overall assessment, key findings, recommendation 2. **Quality Metrics** (0.5 page): Scores by attribute with targets 3. **Detailed Findings** (2-5 pages): Issues grouped by attribute with examples and recommendations 4. **Action Items** (1 page): Prioritized list with owners and due dates 5. **Approval Decision** (0.5 page): Recommendation with rationale and next steps Keep reports factual, specific, and actionable. Always cite specific requirement IDs when identifying issues. > **See [report-templates.md](references/report-templates.md)** for complete report templates ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [DauQuangThanh](https://github.com/DauQuangThanh) - **Source:** [DauQuangThanh/hanoi-rainbow](https://github.com/DauQuangThanh/hanoi-rainbow) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-dauquangthanh-hanoi-rainbow-requirement-review - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dauquangthanh - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.