Gaps Command

Analyze requirements for completeness and identify missing areas.

Usage

/requirements-elicitation:gaps
/requirements-elicitation:gaps --domain "checkout"
/requirements-elicitation:gaps --severity major
/requirements-elicitation:gaps --category security

Arguments

Argument	Required	Description
--domain	No	Domain to analyze (default: current/all)
--severity	No	Minimum severity to report: critical, major, minor (default: minor)
--category	No	Focus on specific category: security, performance, usability, etc.

What It Analyzes

Requirement Coverage

• Functional requirements by category
• Non-functional requirements
• Constraints and assumptions
• Domain-specific areas

NFR Completeness

• Performance targets
• Security requirements
• Usability/accessibility
• Reliability/availability
• Scalability

INVEST Criteria

• Independent
• Negotiable
• Valuable
• Estimable
• Small
• Testable

Workflow

Step 1: Load Requirements

Gather all requirements from:

• .requirements/{domain}/interviews/
• .requirements/{domain}/documents/
• .requirements/{domain}/simulations/
• .requirements/{domain}/research/

Step 2: Load Gap Analysis Skill

Invoke the requirements-elicitation:gap-analysis skill to load checklists and criteria.

Step 3: Run Analysis

Spawn gap-detector agent to:

• Check category coverage
• Evaluate NFR completeness
• Assess INVEST compliance
• Identify gaps

Step 4: Generate Report

Save gap analysis to:

.requirements/{domain}/analysis/GAP-{timestamp}.yaml

Step 5: Display Summary

Show key findings and recommendations.

Examples

Basic Gap Analysis

/requirements-elicitation:gaps

Output:

Gap Analysis: All Domains
Analyzing 45 requirements from 3 sources...

Coverage Summary:
  Functional:     ████████░░ 80%
  Non-Functional: ████░░░░░░ 40%
  Constraints:    ██████░░░░ 60%

Critical Gaps (2):
  1. [SECURITY] No authentication requirements
     → Interview technical stakeholder
  2. [SECURITY] No authorization model
     → Interview technical stakeholder

Major Gaps (4):
  1. [PERFORMANCE] No response time targets
     → Define SLAs with business
  2. [RELIABILITY] No uptime requirements
     → Interview operations stakeholder
  3. [USABILITY] No accessibility requirements
     → Research WCAG guidelines
  4. [ERROR] No error handling specified
     → Simulation with all personas

INVEST Issues (3):
  - REQ-012: Not testable (no acceptance criteria)
  - REQ-023: Too large (needs breakdown)
  - REQ-031: Not independent (depends on REQ-030)

Verdict: NOT READY for specification
         Resolve 2 critical gaps first

Saved to: .requirements/all/analysis/GAP-20251225-160000.yaml

Domain-Specific Analysis

/requirements-elicitation:gaps --domain "authentication" --severity critical

Output:

Gap Analysis: authentication
Showing critical gaps only

Critical Gaps (0):
  None found!

Your authentication requirements cover:
  ✓ Login methods (password, SSO)
  ✓ MFA requirements
  ✓ Session management
  ✓ Password policies
  ✓ Account recovery

Coverage Summary:
  Functional:     ██████████ 100%
  Non-Functional: ████████░░ 80%

Ready for specification: YES

Suggestion: Address 2 major gaps for higher quality:
  - Performance: Login response time not specified
  - Monitoring: Audit logging requirements vague

Category-Focused Analysis

/requirements-elicitation:gaps --category performance

Output:

Gap Analysis: Performance Category

Performance Requirements Found: 3
  - REQ-008: "Page load under 3 seconds"
  - REQ-015: "API response under 200ms"
  - REQ-022: "Support 1000 concurrent users"

Performance Gaps:
  Major:
    1. No peak load handling requirements
       → Simulate operations stakeholder
    2. No database query performance targets
       → Interview technical stakeholder
    3. No caching strategy requirements
       → Research best practices

  Minor:
    1. No CDN requirements for static assets
    2. No browser performance requirements

Recommendation:
  Run: /requirements-elicitation:simulate "performance" --personas technical,operations

Output Format

Saved YAML Structure

gap_analysis:
  session_id: "GAP-{timestamp}"
  domain: "{domain}"
  timestamp: "{ISO-8601}"
  filters:
    severity: "{min-severity}"
    category: "{focused category or all}"

  input_summary:
    total_requirements: 45
    from_interviews: 20
    from_documents: 15
    from_simulations: 8
    from_research: 2

  coverage:
    functional: 80%
    non_functional: 40%
    constraints: 60%
    assumptions: 30%

  gaps:
    critical:
      - id: GAP-001
        category: security
        description: "No authentication requirements"
        recommendation:
          technique: interview
          persona: technical
          questions: [...]

    major:
      - id: GAP-002
        category: performance
        description: "No response time targets"
        recommendation:
          technique: interview
          persona: business
          questions: [...]

    minor:
      - id: GAP-003
        category: accessibility
        description: "Only basic WCAG coverage"
        recommendation:
          technique: research
          topic: "WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines"

  invest_issues:
    - requirement: REQ-012
      issue: "Not testable"
      suggestion: "Add acceptance criteria"

  verdict:
    ready_for_specification: false
    blockers: [GAP-001, GAP-002]
    recommendations:
      - "Conduct security interview"
      - "Define performance SLAs"

Integration

Follow-Up Commands

# Fill gaps via interview
/requirements-elicitation:interview "Technical Lead" --context "security gaps"

# Fill gaps via simulation
/requirements-elicitation:simulate "security" --personas technical,compliance

# Research to fill gaps
/requirements-elicitation:research "WCAG 2.1 accessibility requirements"

# After filling gaps, re-analyze
/requirements-elicitation:gaps

# When ready, export to specification
/requirements-elicitation:export --to canonical

Quality Gate

Gap analysis serves as a quality gate before specification:

Ready for Specification: YES
├── No critical gaps
├── No major gaps (or accepted)
├── All INVEST criteria passing
└── Coverage > 70% in all categories

Ready for Specification: NO
├── Critical gaps exist → Must resolve
├── Major gaps exist → Should resolve
├── INVEST failures → Should fix
└── Coverage < 50% → Need more elicitation