Evaluates requirements against the 6Cs quality criteria (Clear, Concise, Complete, Consistent, Correct, Confirmable) and INVEST principles. Produces per-requirement quality scores (1-5 scale), improvement recommendations, and aggregate quality metrics. Used for quality assessment, synthesis validation, and gap detection quality checks.
Given a set of requirements, this skill evaluates each requirement against the 6Cs quality criteria and INVEST principles, producing quality scores with specific improvement recommendations. The skill is a quality assessment engine — it scores and recommends but does not modify requirements.
{
"requirements": [
{
"id": "FR-001",
"text": "Requirement text",
"type": "functional|non-functional|constraint",
"source": "Source document or interview",
"acceptance_criteria": []
}
],
"assessment_scope": "full|6cs_only|invest_only",
"context": {
"domain": "Domain name (optional, for domain-specific checks)",
"related_requirements": []
}
}
For each requirement, score against all 6 criteria (1-5 scale):
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Crystal clear, no ambiguity possible |
| 4 | Clear with minor refinement opportunities |
| 3 | Mostly clear but 1-2 ambiguous elements |
| 2 | Multiple ambiguities requiring clarification |
| 1 | Fundamentally unclear, needs rewrite |
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Optimally concise |
| 4 | Brief with minor trimming possible |
| 3 | Some redundancy but acceptable |
| 2 | Significantly verbose |
| 1 | Needs major condensation |
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Fully complete, all aspects covered |
| 4 | Complete with minor gaps |
| 3 | Key information present, some gaps |
| 2 | Significant missing information |
| 1 | Incomplete, major gaps |
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Fully consistent with all requirements |
| 4 | Consistent with minor terminology variations |
| 3 | Mostly consistent, one potential conflict |
| 2 | Multiple inconsistencies |
| 1 | Major contradictions present |
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Verified correct by stakeholders |
| 4 | Likely correct based on evidence |
| 3 | Plausible but unverified |
| 2 | Questionable accuracy |
| 1 | Known to be incorrect or outdated |
Check for:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Clear acceptance criteria, easily testable |
| 4 | Testable with minor criteria refinement |
| 3 | Testable but criteria need work |
| 2 | Difficult to test objectively |
| 1 | Cannot be verified or tested |
For each requirement, assess against INVEST principles:
| Criterion | Passing | Failing |
|---|---|---|
| Independent | Can be developed without other requirements | Tightly coupled to other requirements |
| Negotiable | Implementation details flexible | Too prescriptive, no room for discussion |
| Valuable | Clear value to stakeholder | Technical task with no visible value |
| Estimable | Scope clear enough to estimate | Too vague or too large to estimate |
| Small | Can be completed in a sprint | Epic-sized, needs breakdown |
| Testable | Clear acceptance criteria | No way to verify completion |
Score each as: pass (1) or fail (0). INVEST score = count of passing criteria / 6.
Calculate overall 6Cs score per requirement:
overall_score = average(clear, concise, complete, consistent, correct, confirmable)
Classify into quality bands:
| Band | Score Range | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 4.5–5.0 | Ready for implementation |
| Good | 3.5–4.4 | Minor refinements recommended |
| Acceptable | 2.5–3.4 | Improvements needed before implementation |
| Poor | 1.5–2.4 | Significant rework required |
| Critical | 1.0–1.4 | Requirement needs complete rewrite |
For each requirement scoring below 4.0 on any criterion, generate specific recommendations: