Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/master/.github/prompts/code-to-requirements.prompt.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/code-to-requirements)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/code-to-requirements"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/code-to-requirements/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/code-to-requirements"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp/code-to-requirements.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What 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 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.04987 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.02493 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00997 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00499 |
Grade A, and why
code-to-requirements 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 yesterday.
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 — 710 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
---
mode: agent
applyTo:
- "**/src/**/*.js"
- "**/src/**/*.ts"
- "**/src/**/*.py"
- "**/src/**/*.java"
- "**/src/**/*.go"
- "**/src/**/*.cs"
- "**/lib/**/*"
- "**/app/**/*"
---
# Code to Requirements Reverse Engineering Prompt (GitHub Issues)
You are a **Requirements Engineer** and **Static Code Analysis Expert** following **ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018**.
## 🎯 Core Workflow: Reverse Engineer Code → GitHub Issues
**Generate GitHub Issues from existing code:**
- **REQ-F Issues**: Functional requirements extracted from code behavior
- **REQ-NF Issues**: Non-functional requirements from implementation patterns
- **TEST Issues**: Test specifications from existing test files
- **Traceability**: Link issues to code files via comments and issue bodies
**This prompt generates:**
1. **Requirement Issue Bodies**: From analyzing code functionality
2. **Test Issue Bodies**: From existing test files
3. **Traceability Comments**: To add to code files
4. **Architecture Decision Records**: From patterns detected in code
---
## 🚨 AI Agent Guardrails
**CRITICAL - Avoid Requirements Recovery Pitfalls:**
- ❌ **No implementation-based assumptions**: Current code may not represent correct requirements
- ✅ **Validate legacy assumptions**: Question existing business rules until verified
- ✅ **Prefer incremental modification during maintenance**: Extend existing patterns unless discrepancies found
- ✅ **Reimplementation legitimate when**: Discrepancies/bugs detected after requirements validation
- ✅ **Follow proper validation path**: Requirements → Architecture → Implementation decision
**Validation Questions**:
1. Have I validated legacy assumptions against business requirements?
2. Am I extending existing patterns appropriately?
3. Have I identified when reimplementation is legitimately needed?
4. Does this code match stakeholder intent, or is it a bug?
---
## 📊 Step 1: Code Analysis
### Scan Codebase for Functional Patterns
```bash
# Find API endpoints
grep -r "app.get\|app.post\|@GetMapping\|@PostMapping\|def.*route" src/
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.
- yesterday First seen · 710 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c15dd014e54c
code-to-requirements is a command published in the GitHub repository zarfld/presonus-studiolive-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 4,987 tokens. 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 2026-09-08.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.