requirement-convergence
GitHub用于在需求进入工作流后、设计开始前，收敛构建目标。通过听证协议澄清结果、需求和非目标，评估就绪状态，确保需求清晰且一致，为后续开发提供明确依据。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --skill requirement-convergence -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "requirement-convergence",
"description": "Separates the outcome a change must produce from the requirements proposed to reach it, records what the user excluded, and bands cost from structure. Use when a requirement enters a workflow, before design begins."
}
Requirement Convergence
Purpose
Requirements arrive bloated, ambiguous, or aimed at the wrong outcome. A capable model reconciles all three into a coherent plan and builds it faithfully — delivering exactly what was asked for when what was asked for was wrong.
This skill converges what to build. How to build it, and which documents the change requires, are settled after the what is.
Convergence Fields
| Field | Pass condition |
|---|---|
outcome |
One observable result. A requirement that does not serve it is excess. |
requirements[] |
Every item labeled current-state, desired-future, or speculative. |
nonGoals[] |
Authored by the user, or the user stated there are none. |
cost |
A band with the structural evidence that places it, plus the unknowns that remain. |
cost is a rough band, not the effort estimate a work plan schedules against; requirements cannot support person-days. Its unknowns carry more decision weight than its size.
Each field carries a readiness label: ready, weak, or weak-but-explicit (weak, and the user agreed to leave it unresolved). Only the user sets weak-but-explicit. Requirements are converged when every applicable field is ready or weak-but-explicit.
Judgment rules per field: references/criteria.md.
Hearing Protocol
Run the hearing after scope analysis has produced the facts needed to judge the convergence fields. The workflow using this skill owns the interaction method and routing; this skill defines the hearing content and pass conditions.
Register these steps before starting and record each step's evidence as it completes:
| Step | Action | Completion evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | State the scope facts the analysis produced, then separately what they imply for the requirement | Facts listed with the analysis output they came from |
| 2 | Ask about the fields below ready, at most two questions per message |
One question per field below ready |
| 3 | Record each answer as that field's value | The value uses wording the user supplied, not wording the hearing offered |
| 4 | Re-ask once when a recorded value still fails its pass condition, then mark the field weak-but-explicit when the user agrees to leave the second answer as it stands |
Two recorded answers, or the user's agreement to stop |
| 5 | Hand the record to the step that judges the fields | An updated record returned from that step |
Step 3's evidence is what keeps the hearing reviewable: a value restating the hearing's own candidates fails it, so the user's judgment survives however the question was put.
Storage Protocol
| Carrier | Holds | Written by |
|---|---|---|
| The convergence record in the judging step's output | Every field with its readiness label | The judging step |
PRD Success Criteria and Future / Out of Scope |
outcome; nonGoals and speculative requirements with origin user |
The PRD production step |
Design Doc Requirement Convergence |
The same when no PRD exists, and the fields left weak-but-explicit in every case |
The Design Doc production step |
A flow that produces neither document carries the record in its own context to the next step.
Reference Protocol (For Downstream Consumers)
- Read the convergence record from the prompt.
- Treat
nonGoalsandspeculativerequirements as excluded from the current change. Aspeculativeitem becomes buildable only after the user promotes it todesired-future. - Treat a
weak-but-explicitfield as a recorded open question rather than a settled decision. When work depends on it, return the missing decision and its effect to the owning workflow.
Quality Checklist
- Scope facts were presented before questions were asked
-
nonGoalscame from the user, or the user stated there are none - Every applicable field is
ready, orweak-but-explicitby the user's agreement
References
- references/criteria.md — judgment rules per field, cost inputs, challenge intensity, solution-in-disguise test
Version History
-
416af89
Current 2026-08-12 16:39
重构以对齐基于证据的模型自主性工作流程
-
51b7dbc
2026-08-05 01:46
添加基于证据的审查决议机制
- 29b9210 2026-08-03 04:22
