swarm-debug
Systematic debugging — evidence before hypotheses, hypotheses before fixes, root cause before patches, and the diagnosis saved to the vault. Use for any real…
Requirements phase — a clarifying, options-first stakeholder interview that removes confusion and assumptions (not a relentless grilling) and produces a validated SRS + per-feature specs with EARS acceptance criteria and ISO 25010 NFRs. Use to start a new project's requirements,
$ npx -y skills add AnmarHani/SwarmVault --skill swarm-spec --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/swarm-specContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Requirements phase — a clarifying, options-first stakeholder interview that removes confusion and assumptions (not a relentless grilling) and produces a validated SRS + per-feature specs with EARS acceptance criteria and ISO 25010 NFRs. Use to start a new project's requirements,
name: swarm-spec description: Requirements phase — a clarifying, options-first stakeholder interview that removes confusion and assumptions (not a relentless grilling) and produces a validated SRS + per-feature specs with EARS acceptance criteria and ISO 25010 NFRs. Use to start a new project's requirements, gather/analyze/specify/validate requirements, stress-test a plan, or mine requirements from an existing codebase (brownfield). Also handles requirement changes after validation.
Quality here is leverage: every later phase builds on this document. Expect the strongest available model — if this session runs a lesser tier, say so and let the user decide.
Requirements work isn't an interrogation — the goal is to **remove confusion and unstated assumptions**, not to make the user answer a hundred questions. Before diving in, offer how much to involve them (recommend **hybrid**; they can switch anytime):
Maximum control, slowest.
each assumption, and surface them together for one batch review. Fastest.
defaults on the rest and log them. The user may also scope it ("ask me about auth and billing, assume the rest").
Whatever the mode, **every assumption is recorded** (in the question queue, status `ASSUMED`) so the closing summary can show exactly what you decided for them.
Only *decisions* go to the user; *facts* are looked up (codebase, vault, web). For each decision surfaced: **lead with a recommendation**, state the assumption behind it, list the alternatives, and accept any free-text answer. If something is only mildly uncertain and the mode allows, assume the sensible default and note it rather than asking.
**The question queue** — `30 Plans/<P>/question-queue.md` (machine lane) — keeps a long conversation honest across sessions and compaction:
is never dropped. Return to open items before the phase can complete.
Probe the quality dimensions explicitly, even unprompted (offer defaults so this stays light): performance, security, usability, reliability (ISO 25010: functional suitability, performance efficiency, compatibility, usability, reliability, security, maintainability, portability). Ask about interfaces (Web/Mobile/Desktop/TUI/CLI/none), stakeholders, constraints (budget, stack, compliance), and what is explicitly OUT of scope.
Mine first, ask second — the repo is a stakeholder whose answers are already written down. Reverse-engineer requirements from README/docs/tests/code into specs marked `status: mined-draft`, each statement carrying provenance (`file:line`). Present for batch validation; interview only gaps, conflicts, and low-confidence items. Never re-ask what the sources answer.
MoSCoW priorities, NFRs in EARS notation, traceability scheme, build milestones, changelog, glossary.
(EARS), edge cases, `requires:` dependencies. Template: `90 Templates/spec.md`.
EARS patterns: ubiquitous ("The X shall…"), event ("WHEN … shall…"), state ("WHILE …"), unwanted ("IF … THEN …"), optional ("WHERE …"). Every FR: unique ID, priority, ≥1 testable criterion, edge cases considered.
Don't make the user read the whole SRS to approve it. First present a **review summary** they can skim in a minute, then point them at the full doc for anything they want to drill into:
Invite a quick "OK" or targeted changes. On approval, flip `status: draft → validated`. Then ask the **mode question**: gated (user verifies each milestone) or auto (sweeps self-verify, no stops) — record in flow-state along with `phase: design`.
New/changed requirement → tracker entry + SRS changelog + version bump + propagate to every artifact that mentions it (specs, design, tickets) via FR-ID references. Flag impacted downstream work; never edit silently.
--- *Influences: Pocock's grilling & to-spec; superpowers brainstorming; Jeffallan's feature-forge & spec-miner; ISO 25010; EARS; workingsoftware.dev NFR guide — see CREDITS.md.*
Your AI agents don't synchronise. SwarmVault does. One shared memory for Claude Code, Codex, and any other CLI agent. Real software engineering: requirements → design → tickets → review. 14 skills, the best of everything combined.
Systematic debugging — evidence before hypotheses, hypotheses before fixes, root cause before patches, and the diagnosis saved to the vault. Use for any real…
The developer-driven design lane — the user commits to each approach before anything is written, then the design goes to pseudocode, algorithms, invariants,…
UI/UX design phase — propose an intentional design system (pattern, brand, color, typography, spacing, atomic components) with the user, offering distinct…
System design phase — architecture, tech-stack options, module boundaries, data model, and ADRs from a validated SRS. Use after requirements are validated,…
Disconnect a project from SwarmVault and choose what happens to its knowledge — keep it, export it into the repo, or delete it. Use when the user wants to stop…
The SDLC router — figures out where a project stands and runs the right phase. Use at the START of any work in a SwarmVault project: continuing/resuming a…