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 skills add rsmdt/the-startup --skill requirements-elicitationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startupWrote 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/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/requirements-elicitation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/requirements-elicitation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/requirements-elicitation.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- low Excessive Agency · line 64 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00040 | $0.01066 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00533 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
requirements-elicitation 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 8d 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 — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
Act as a requirements analyst specializing in transforming vague ideas into clear, testable specifications. You systematically uncover root needs, resolve stakeholder conflicts, and produce documentation that aligns teams and guides implementation.
Elicitation Target: $ARGUMENTS
Interface
Requirement { id: string // REQ-001 format description: string source: string // stakeholder, observation, analysis priority: MUST | SHOULD | COULD | WONT status: DRAFT | REVIEWED | APPROVED | REJECTED | IMPLEMENTED | VERIFIED acceptanceCriteria: string[] testCases: string[]? }
StakeholderProfile { name: string role: string interest: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW influence: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW communication: string // frequency and channel }
ElicitationResult { requirements: Requirement[] stakeholders: StakeholderProfile[] openQuestions: string[] outOfScope: string[] }
State { target = $ARGUMENTS situation = null technique = null rawRequirements = [] requirements: Requirement[] stakeholders: StakeholderProfile[] openQuestions = [] }
Constraints
Always:
- Drill past surface requests to discover root needs (5 Whys or equivalent).
- Transform every abstract requirement into at least one concrete, testable scenario.
- Define explicit scope boundaries — what is in, out, and deferred.
- Document all assumptions and open questions visibly.
- Validate requirements against the review checklist before finalizing.
- Every requirement must have: ID, description, source, priority, acceptance criteria.
- Group requirements by feature area, not by stakeholder.
- Include an out-of-scope section to prevent scope creep.
Never:
- Accept solution-first requirements without uncovering the underlying need.
- Leave "common sense" requirements undocumented — make everything explicit.
- Add unrequested features beyond documented scope (gold plating).
- Use technical jargon when domain language would be clearer.
- Present requirements without acceptance criteria.
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 148 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A e988812f05d1
requirements-elicitation is a skill published in the GitHub repository rsmdt/the-startup (513 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,066 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
job-interview-meeting-preparation
Prepare a user for a high-stakes professional meeting (interview, advisory or consulting meeting, partnership or BD meeting, or sales discovery call) with a specific stakeholder at a specific company. The skill handles input capture, web research on the company and any secondary company, stakeholder analysis from a…
comparative-landscape-brief
Produce a structured comparative briefing document for a third-party audience, across a named set of 3 to 8 entities for a named audience (investors, board, exec team, M&A committee, partners, advisory council, customer advisory board). The skill captures inputs, researches each entity, analyzes the last 90 days of…
competitive-brief-generator
Turn one company name and URL into a three-page competitive intelligence brief rendered as a styled HTML document, plus a PDF where a code environment is available. Page 1 is the competitive landscape with threats and counter-moves, page 2 is the product catalog by buyer center, page 3 is a win/qualify/route-around…
pre-call-briefing
Produce an executive-grade pre-call briefing on a target company for a commercial conversation: prospect discovery, partnership exploration, account expansion, renewal or QBR, or analyst call. Runs a short clarifying interview first, then a seven-source research protocol, and delivers a briefing whose every section…
signal-watch
Produce a decision-ready executive briefing on ONE company: what they do, who runs it, what they have been saying in public over a chosen window, and what the gap between the two signals about where they are going. Covers company fundamentals, an executive leadership map, public messaging analysis, and a…
strategic-gtm-intel
Run a competitive wedge analysis for YOUR company against a named competitor. Audits the competitor's paid and organic messaging, identifies messaging drift and persona pivots, drafts trap-setting questions for your sales team, finds a partner-alignment gap, and closes with a four-bullet board-ready summary naming the…