Kiro Spec Requirements

Parallel Research (sub-agent dispatch)

The following research areas are independent. Decide the optimal decomposition based on project complexity -- split, merge, add, or skip sub-agents as needed.

In main context (essential for requirements generation):

• Spec files: spec.json, brief.md, requirements.md (project description)
• EARS format rules, requirements review gate, requirements template
• Core steering: product.md, tech.md (directly inform scope and constraints)

Delegate to sub-agent (keeps exploration out of main context):

• Codebase hints (brownfield projects): Spawn a sub-agent to explore existing implementations that inform requirement scope. Ask it to summarize: (1) what already exists, (2) relevant interfaces/APIs, (3) patterns that new requirements should align with. Return a summary under 150 lines.
• Domain research (when external knowledge is needed): Spawn a sub-agent for web research on domain-specific requirements, standards, or best practices. Return a concise findings summary.
• Additional steering and playbooks: If many steering files or local agent playbooks exist, spawn a sub-agent to scan them and return only the sections relevant to this feature.

For greenfield projects with minimal codebase, skip sub-agent dispatch and load context directly. If multi-agent is not available, execute sequentially in main context.

After all research completes, synthesize findings in main context before generating requirements.

3. Generate Requirements Draft:

   • Create initial requirements draft based on project description
   • Group related functionality into logical requirement areas
   • Apply EARS format to all acceptance criteria
   • Use language specified in spec.json
   • Preserve terminology continuity across phases:
     • discovery = Boundary Candidates
     • requirements = explicit inclusion/exclusion and adjacent expectations when needed
     • design = Boundary Commitments
     • tasks = _Boundary:_
   • If scope could be misread, add lightweight boundary context without introducing implementation or architecture ownership detail
   • Keep this as a draft until the review gate passes; do not write requirements.md yet

4. Review Requirements Draft:

   • Run the Requirements Review Gate from rules/requirements-review-gate.md
   • Review coverage, EARS compliance, ambiguity, adjacent expectations, and scope boundaries before finalizing
   • If issues are local to the draft, repair the requirements and review again
   • Keep the review bounded to at most 2 repair passes
   • If the draft exposes a real scope ambiguity or contradiction, stop and ask the user to clarify instead of writing guessed requirements

5. Finalize and Update Metadata:

   • Write {{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.md only after the requirements review gate passes
   • Set phase: "requirements-generated"
   • Set approvals.requirements.generated: true
   • Update updated_at timestamp

Important Constraints

Requirements Scope: WHAT, not HOW

Requirements describe user-observable behavior, not implementation. Use this to decide what belongs here vs. in design:

Ask the user about (requirements scope):

• Functional scope — what is included and what is excluded
• User-observable behavior — "when X happens, what should the user see/experience?"
• Business rules and edge cases — limits, error conditions, special cases
• Non-functional requirements visible to users — response time expectations, availability, security level
• Adjacent expectations only when they change user-visible behavior or operator expectations — what this feature relies on, and what it explicitly does not own

Do not ask about (design scope — defer to design phase):

• Technology stack choices (database, framework, language)
• Architecture patterns (microservices, monolith, event-driven)
• API design, data models, internal component structure
• How to achieve non-functional requirements (caching strategy, scaling approach)
• Internal ownership mapping, component seams, or implementation boundaries that belong in design

Litmus test: If an EARS acceptance criterion can be written without mentioning any technology, it belongs in requirements. If it requires a technology choice, it belongs in design.

Other Constraints

• Each requirement must be testable and unambiguous. If the project description leaves room for multiple interpretations on scope, behavior, or boundary conditions, ask the user to clarify before generating that requirement. Ask as many questions as needed; do not generate requirements that contain your own assumptions.
• Choose appropriate subject for EARS statements (system/service name for software)
• Requirement headings in requirements.md MUST include a leading numeric ID only (for example: "Requirement 1", "1.", "2 Feature ..."); do not use alphabetic IDs like "Requirement A". </instructions>

Output Description

Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with:

1. Generated Requirements Summary: Brief overview of major requirement areas (3-5 bullets)
2. Document Status: Confirm requirements.md updated and spec.json metadata updated
3. Review Gate: Confirm the requirements review gate passed
4. Next Steps: Guide user on how to proceed (approve and continue, or modify)

Format Requirements:

• Use Markdown headings for clarity
• Include file paths in code blocks
• Keep summary concise (under 300 words)

Safety & Fallback

Error Scenarios

• Missing Project Description: If requirements.md lacks project description, ask user for feature details
• Template Missing: If template files don't exist, use inline fallback structure with warning
• Language Undefined: Default to English (en) if spec.json doesn't specify language
• Incomplete Requirements: After generation, explicitly ask user if requirements cover all expected functionality
• Steering Directory Empty: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect requirement quality
• Non-numeric Requirement Headings: If existing headings do not include a leading numeric ID (for example, they use "Requirement A"), normalize them to numeric IDs and keep that mapping consistent (never mix numeric and alphabetic labels).
• Scope Ambiguity Found During Requirements Review: Stop execution, do not write a guessed requirements.md, and ask the user to clarify the missing or conflicting scope before re-running /kiro-spec-requirements $1

Next Phase: Design Generation

If Requirements Approved:

• Review generated requirements at {{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.md
• Optional Gap Analysis (for existing codebases):
  • Run /kiro-validate-gap $1 to analyze implementation gap with current code
  • Identifies existing components, integration points, and implementation strategy
  • Recommended for brownfield projects; skip for greenfield
• Then /kiro-spec-design $1 -y to proceed to design phase

If Modifications Needed:

• Provide feedback and re-run /kiro-spec-requirements $1