Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

requirements-elicitation

Facilitate structured requirements gathering. Use when the user says "gather requirements", "elicitation session", "stakeholder interview", "requirements workshop", "what do the users need", "discover requirements", "trawl for requirements", "understand the business need", "conduct interviews", or needs to systematically extract requirements from stakeholders - even if they don't explicitly say "elicitation".

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB
  • references/elicitation-techniques.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Reference Files

  • references/elicitation-techniques.md - Lookup table of 15+ elicitation techniques with when to use, participants, output format, and time needed. Read this in Step 2 when selecting techniques and in Step 3 when planning sessions.

Overview

Based on the BABOK Guide v3 (IIBA) - Elicitation & Collaboration knowledge area, which defines 50 standardized techniques across 6 knowledge areas. Also draws on Mastering the Requirements Process by Suzanne & James Robertson for the Volere "trawling" approach - their term for iterative elicitation driven by business events, not document templates. The key insight: elicitation is not a phase you complete; it is a continuous activity that starts with business events and stakeholders, not with a blank requirements template.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify stakeholders and business events

List every person, role, and adjacent system that touches the problem space. Use the BABOK's stakeholder categories: customer, end user, sponsor, domain expert, regulator, implementation team. Then list the business events that trigger the process or system under analysis - Robertson's Business Event List is the elicitation backbone.

Step 2: Select elicitation techniques

Match techniques to stakeholder type and information need (see references/elicitation-techniques.md). Use a mix:

  • Interviews for deep individual knowledge
  • Workshops for cross-functional alignment and conflict surfacing
  • Observation/Apprenticing (Robertson) for tacit knowledge users cannot articulate
  • Document Analysis for existing rules, policies, and constraints
  • Prototyping for validating understanding with users

Step 3: Plan and schedule sessions

For each session, define:

SESSION: [type - interview / workshop / observation]
STAKEHOLDER(S): [names and roles]
OBJECTIVE: [what you need to learn]
TECHNIQUE: [from reference table]
DURATION: [estimated time]
PREPARATION: [materials, context docs, pre-reads]

Step 4: Conduct elicitation

During sessions:

  • Start with open-ended context questions ("Walk me through how you do X today")
  • Progress to specific probes ("What happens when Y fails?")
  • Capture requirements using Robertson's Volere Snow Card format: requirement number, type, description, rationale, source, fit criterion
  • Note assumptions, constraints, and conflicts separately
  • Record who said what - source traceability starts here

Step 5: Confirm and validate

After each session:

  • Write up findings within 24 hours
  • Send back to stakeholders for confirmation (BABOK's "confirm elicitation results")
  • Flag conflicts between stakeholders - do not resolve silently
  • Identify gaps that need follow-up sessions

Step 6: Organize and classify requirements

Classify using BABOK's hierarchy:

  • Business requirements - why the organization needs this
  • Stakeholder requirements - what users need to do
  • Solution requirements - functional + non-functional
  • Transition requirements - what's needed to move from current to future state

Anti-Patterns

1. Template-first elicitation Bad: Sending a requirements template to stakeholders and asking them to fill it in. Good: Conduct interviews and workshops first, then organize findings into a structured format.

2. Single-technique reliance Bad: Only conducting interviews, missing tacit knowledge that observation would reveal. Good: Use at least 3 techniques per project - interviews for depth, workshops for alignment, observation for reality.

3. Eliciting solutions instead of needs Bad: "The user wants a dropdown menu." (That's a solution.) Good: "The user needs to select from a constrained set of valid values." (That's a requirement.)

4. No source traceability Bad: Requirements listed without noting who requested them or why. Good: Every requirement links back to a stakeholder, business event, or document source.

5. One-pass elicitation Bad: Running a single round of interviews and declaring requirements "complete." Good: Iterative trawling - each round reveals gaps that drive the next round.

Quality Checklist

  • All stakeholder categories identified (users, sponsors, domain experts, regulators)
  • Business events listed as elicitation drivers
  • At least 3 elicitation techniques selected
  • Each session has a defined objective and preparation
  • Requirements captured with source attribution
  • Findings confirmed with stakeholders
  • Conflicts between stakeholders flagged (not silently resolved)
  • Requirements classified by BABOK hierarchy
  • Gaps identified with follow-up sessions planned

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

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

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

qa-aman/claude-skills21Updated Oct 19, 2026

See all skills by qa-aman

Report a problem with this skill