msd-core/get-shit-done/workflows/define-requirements.md

Transform research findings into scoped, checkable requirements.

Research tells you what products in this domain typically have. Requirements tell you what YOU are building for v1.

This is the bridge between "what's possible" and "what we're committing to."

<required_reading> Read these files NOW:

1. ~/.claude/get-shit-done/templates/requirements.md
2. .planning/PROJECT.md
3. .planning/research/FEATURES.md
4. .planning/research/SUMMARY.md </required_reading>

Read PROJECT.md and extract: - Core value (the ONE thing that must work) - Stated constraints (budget, timeline, tech limitations) - Any explicit scope boundaries from project definition

Read research/FEATURES.md and extract:

• Table stakes (users expect these)
• Differentiators (competitive advantage)
• Anti-features (commonly requested, often problematic)
• Feature dependencies
• MVP vs full product recommendations

Read research/SUMMARY.md for:

• Overall confidence level
• Key architectural constraints
• Suggested phase structure (informational only)

Present researched features grouped by category:

Based on research, here are the features for [domain]:

## Authentication
**Table stakes:**
- Sign up with email/password
- Email verification
- Password reset
- Session management

**Differentiators:**
- Magic link login
- OAuth (Google, GitHub)
- 2FA

**Research notes:** [any relevant notes from FEATURES.md]

---

## [Next Category]
...

For each category, include:

• Table stakes from FEATURES.md
• Differentiators from FEATURES.md
• Any anti-features flagged (with warnings)
• Complexity notes where relevant

For each category, use AskUserQuestion:

• header: "[Category name]"
• question: "Which [category] features are in v1?"
• multiSelect: true
• options:
  • "[Feature 1]" — [brief description or complexity note]
  • "[Feature 2]" — [brief description]
  • "[Feature 3]" — [brief description]
  • "None for v1" — Defer entire category

Repeat for each category from research.

Track responses:

• Selected features → v1 requirements
• Unselected table stakes → flag as v2 (users expect these)
• Unselected differentiators → out of scope (unless user specifies v2)

After scoping all researched categories, ask for additions:

Use AskUserQuestion:

• header: "Additions"
• question: "Any requirements research missed? (Features specific to your vision)"
• options:
  • "No, research covered it" — Proceed to generate
  • "Yes, let me add some" — Capture additional requirements

If "Yes":

Ask inline (freeform): "What additional requirements do you need?"

Parse response into requirement format and add to v1 list.

Cross-check requirements against Core Value from PROJECT.md:

Core value: "[from PROJECT.md]"

Requirements that directly support core value:
- [requirement 1]
- [requirement 2]

⚠️ Warning: Core value may not be fully covered by selected requirements.
Missing coverage: [gap description]

If gap detected:

Use AskUserQuestion:

• header: "Core value"
• question: "Core value '[X]' may need additional requirements. Add coverage?"
• options:
  • "Yes, suggest requirements" — Claude suggests, user confirms
  • "No, it's covered" — Proceed
  • "Adjust core value" — User provides updated core value

Create `.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md` using template.

Structure:

• Header with project name and date
• v1 Requirements grouped by category (checkboxes)
• v2 Requirements (deferred, no checkboxes yet)
• Out of Scope (explicit exclusions with reasoning)
• Traceability section (empty, filled by create-roadmap)

Requirement format:

### [Category]

- [ ] **[REQ-ID]**: [Requirement description]
- [ ] **[REQ-ID]**: [Requirement description]

REQ-ID format: [CATEGORY]-[NUMBER]

• AUTH-01, AUTH-02
• CONTENT-01, CONTENT-02
• SOCIAL-01, SOCIAL-02

IDs enable traceability from roadmap phases.

Present summary before committing:

## Requirements Summary

**v1 Scope:**
- Authentication: [N] requirements
- [Category]: [N] requirements
- [Category]: [N] requirements
Total: [X] requirements

**v2 (Deferred):**
- [Category]: [N] requirements
Total: [Y] requirements

**Out of Scope:**
- [Feature]: [reason]
- [Feature]: [reason]

**Core Value Alignment:** ✓ Covered / ⚠️ Gaps noted

---

Does this capture what you're building? (yes / adjust)

If "adjust": Return to scope_categories or identify_gaps as appropriate.

Commit requirements:

git add .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
docs: define v1 requirements

[X] requirements across [N] categories.
[Y] requirements deferred to v2.

Core value: [from PROJECT.md]
EOF
)"

``` Requirements defined:

• Requirements: .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md
• v1 scope: [X] requirements across [N] categories
• v2 deferred: [Y] requirements
• Out of scope: [Z] exclusions

---

▶ Next Up

Create roadmap — phases mapped to requirements

/gsd:create-roadmap

<sub>/clear first → fresh context window</sub>

---

</step>

</process>

<quality_criteria>
**Good requirements:**
- Specific and testable ("User can reset password via email link")
- User-centric ("User can X" not "System does Y")
- Atomic (one capability per requirement)
- Independent where possible (minimal dependencies)

**Bad requirements:**
- Vague ("Handle authentication")
- Technical implementation ("Use bcrypt for passwords")
- Compound ("User can login and manage profile and change settings")
- Dependent on unstated assumptions
</quality_criteria>

<success_criteria>
- [ ] PROJECT.md core value extracted
- [ ] Research FEATURES.md loaded and parsed
- [ ] All categories presented to user
- [ ] User scoped each category (v1/v2/out of scope)
- [ ] User had opportunity to add requirements
- [ ] Core value alignment validated
- [ ] REQUIREMENTS.md created with REQ-IDs
- [ ] v1, v2, and out of scope clearly separated
- [ ] Requirements committed to git
</success_criteria>