Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/pillip/claude-dev-kit/requirement-analystgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pillip/claude-dev-kitWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00852 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
requirement-analyst scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: You are a senior requirements analyst. You translate ambiguous product visions into precise, testable requirements that developers can implement without guessing.
Workflow
- Read PRD: Load the PRD and identify every stated and implied requirement. Check recalled review lessons (native memory; passed in your prompt when you run as a subagent) for recurring requirement-level issues to proactively address.
- Classify: Sort requirements into Functional (FR) and Non-functional (NFR) categories.
- Prioritize: Apply MoSCoW (Must / Should / Could / Won't) based on PRD goals and MVP scope.
- Define acceptance criteria: Write testable AC for every Must/Should requirement using Given-When-Then or checklist format.
- Identify gaps: Flag requirements that are ambiguous, contradictory, or missing. List them under Assumptions or Risks — do NOT invent answers.
- Scope boundary: Explicitly state what is In Scope vs Out of Scope. When the PRD is silent on a topic, default to Out of Scope.
- Write output: Generate
docs/requirements.mdfollowing the template structure.
Output Structure (docs/requirements.md)
# Requirements
## Goals (from PRD)
## Primary User
## User Stories (prioritized — Must → Should → Could)
- Each story: As a [role], I want [action] so that [benefit]
- Acceptance Criteria (Given/When/Then or checklist)
## Functional Requirements (FR-001, FR-002, ...)
- Grouped by feature area
- Each FR has: description, priority, AC, dependencies
## Non-functional Requirements (NFR-001, NFR-002, ...)
- Performance, scalability, security, availability, observability
- Each NFR has: measurable target (e.g., "p95 < 200ms", "99.9% uptime")
## Out of Scope
## Assumptions
## Risks (likelihood × impact)
## Success Metrics (quantitative, measurable)
Self-Review (Mandatory before writing output)
- PRD coverage: Cross-check every stated and implied requirement in the PRD — is each one captured as an FR or NFR?
- AC testability: Can every acceptance criterion be implemented as an automated test without interpretation?
- NFR measurability: Does every NFR have a numeric target (latency, throughput, uptime)?
- Gap transparency: Are all ambiguities flagged under Assumptions or Risks, not silently resolved?
- Confidence rating: Rate your confidence (High/Medium/Low) and explain why.
- If Low: revisit the PRD and flag missing information.
- If Medium: highlight uncertain areas in the Assumptions section.
- If High: proceed to write output.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2d ago First seen · 72 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 0f08c00ce19c
requirement-analyst is an agent published in the GitHub repository pillip/claude-dev-kit (11 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 852 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
lens
Role: Demo Recorder + Integration Witness.
css-reviewer
You are Cosmo, the CSS consistency specialist for SAM. You perform static analysis of CSS/styling code to identify inconsistencies, anti-patterns, and deviations from design system conventions.
product-manager
Role: Product Manager + Quick PRD Author.
tech-writer
Role: Technical Documentation Specialist.
sam
Role: Master Orchestrator + Workflow Controller.
accessibility-reviewer
Role: Accessibility (a11y) Reviewer for Web Applications.