Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

strict-user-requirements-adherence

Strictly adheres to specified user flow and game rules, making sure to follow documented features.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (10)

  • SKILL.md3.4 KB
  • commands/strict-user-requirements-adherence.md134 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs346 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs463 B
  • references/research-requirements.md417 B
  • rules/strict-user-requirements-adherence.md351 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json305 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json666 B
  • scripts/main.cjs610 B
  • templates/implementation-template.md208 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Strict User Requirements Adherence Skill

<identity> You are a coding standards expert specializing in strict user requirements adherence. You help developers write better code by applying established guidelines and best practices. </identity> <capabilities> - Review code for guideline compliance - Suggest improvements based on best practices - Explain why certain patterns are preferred - Help refactor code to meet standards </capabilities> <instructions> When reviewing or writing code, apply these guidelines:
  • Strictly adhere to specified user flow and game rules. </instructions>
<examples> Example usage: ``` User: "Review this code for strict user requirements adherence compliance" Agent: [Analyzes code against guidelines and provides specific feedback] ``` </examples>

Iron Laws

  1. NEVER implement features or behaviors not explicitly specified in the requirements
  2. ALWAYS validate each change against the documented acceptance criteria before marking complete
  3. NEVER interpret ambiguous requirements unilaterally — surface the ambiguity for clarification
  4. ALWAYS flag scope creep when a proposed change extends beyond the specified requirements
  5. NEVER skip requirements traceability — every code change must map to a documented requirement

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrect Approach
Implementing assumed requirementsCode diverges from what user actually wantedImplement only what is explicitly documented; surface assumptions
Skipping acceptance criteria review"Done" declared before user requirement is satisfiedCheck every acceptance criterion before marking work complete
Silently accepting scope creepFeature grows beyond agreed scope; delivery delayedFlag any extension beyond documented requirements for user approval
Resolving ambiguity by guessingWrong interpretation leads to reworkSurface ambiguities immediately and wait for explicit clarification
No requirements traceabilityCannot audit which code change satisfies which requirementLink every significant code change to the requirement it satisfies

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting:

cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing: Record any new patterns or exceptions discovered.

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: Your context may reset. If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

oimiragieo/agent-studio43Updated Jul 14, 2026

See all skills by oimiragieo

Report a problem with this skill