From rune
Business Analyst agent. Deeply understands user requirements before any planning or coding begins. Asks probing questions, identifies hidden requirements, maps stakeholders, defines scope boundaries, and produces a structured Requirements Document that plan and cook consume.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/rune:baThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Business Analyst agent — the ROOT FIX for "Claude works a lot but produces nothing." BA forces deep understanding of WHAT to build before any code is written. It asks probing questions, identifies hidden requirements, maps stakeholders, defines scope boundaries, and produces a structured Requirements Document.
Business Analyst agent — the ROOT FIX for "Claude works a lot but produces nothing." BA forces deep understanding of WHAT to build before any code is written. It asks probing questions, identifies hidden requirements, maps stakeholders, defines scope boundaries, and produces a structured Requirements Document.
BA produces WHAT, not HOW. Never write code. Never plan implementation. Output is a Requirements Document → hand off to rune:plan for implementation planning.cook Phase 1 when task is product-oriented (not a simple bug fix)scaffold Phase 1 before any project generation/rune ba <requirement> — manual invocationscout (L2): scan existing codebase for contextresearch (L3): look up similar products, APIs, integrationsplan (L2): hand off Requirements Document for implementation planningbrainstorm (L2): when multiple approaches exist for a requirementcook (L1): before Phase 2 PLAN, when task is non-trivialscaffold (L1): Phase 1, before any project generationplan (L2): when plan receives vague requirements/rune ba direct invocationba → plan — ba produces requirements, plan produces implementation stepsba → brainstorm — ba calls brainstorm when multiple requirement approaches existba ↔ cook — cook calls ba for non-trivial tasks, ba feeds requirements into cook's pipelineba → scaffold — scaffold requires ba output before project generationRead the user's request. Classify the requirement type:
| Type | Signal | Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Feature Request | "add X", "build Y", "I want Z" | Full BA cycle (Steps 1-7) |
| Bug Fix | "broken", "error", "doesn't work" | Skip BA → direct to debug |
| Refactor | "clean up", "refactor", "restructure" | Light BA (Step 1 + Step 4 only) |
| Integration | "connect X to Y", "integrate with Z" | Full BA + API research |
| Greenfield | "new project", "build from scratch" | Full BA + market context |
If Bug Fix → skip BA, route to cook/debug directly. If Refactor → light version (Step 1 + Step 4 only).
If existing codebase → invoke rune:scout for context before proceeding.
Ask exactly 5 probing questions, ONE AT A TIME (not all at once):
Choose the framework that fits the requirement type. Use it to STRUCTURE the 5 Questions above, not replace them.
| Framework | When to Use | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| PICO | Clinical, research, data-driven, or A/B testing features | Population (who), Intervention (what change), Comparison (vs what), Outcome (measurable result) |
| INVEST | User stories for sprint-sized features | Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable |
| Jobs-to-be-Done | Product features, user workflows | "When [situation], I want to [motivation] so I can [expected outcome]" |
PICO Example (data feature):
P: Dashboard users monitoring real-time metrics
I: Add anomaly detection alerts
C: vs. current manual threshold setting
O: 30% faster incident detection (measurable KPI)
When to apply which:
After the 5 questions, analyze for requirements the user DIDN'T mention:
Technical hidden requirements:
Business hidden requirements:
Present discovered hidden requirements to user: "I found N additional requirements you may not have considered: [list]. Which are relevant?"
When presenting options, alternatives, or scope decisions to the user, rate each with a Completeness score (X/10):
| Score | Meaning | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 9-10 | Complete — all edge cases, full coverage, production-ready | Always recommend |
| 7-8 | Covers happy path, skips some edges | Acceptable for MVP |
| 4-6 | Shortcut — defers significant work to later | Flag trade-off explicitly |
| 1-3 | Minimal viable, technical debt guaranteed | Only for time-critical emergencies |
Always recommend the higher-completeness option unless the delta is truly expensive. With AI-assisted coding, the marginal cost of completeness is near-zero:
| Task Type | Human Team | AI-Assisted | Compression |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boilerplate / scaffolding | 2 days | 15 min | ~100x |
| Test writing | 1 day | 15 min | ~50x |
| Feature implementation | 1 week | 30 min | ~30x |
| Bug fix + regression test | 4 hours | 15 min | ~20x |
When showing effort estimates, always show both scales: (human: ~X / AI: ~Y). The compression ratio reframes "too expensive" into "15 minutes more."
Anti-pattern: "Choose B — it covers 90% of the value with less code." → If A is only 70 lines more, choose A. The last 10% is where production bugs hide.
Based on all gathered information, produce:
In-Scope (explicitly included):
Out-of-Scope (explicitly excluded):
Assumptions (things we're assuming without proof):
Dependencies (things that must exist before we can build):
For each in-scope feature, generate:
US-1: As a [persona], I want to [action] so that [benefit]
AC-1.1: GIVEN [context] WHEN [action] THEN [result]
AC-1.2: GIVEN [error case] WHEN [action] THEN [error handling]
AC-1.3: GIVEN [edge case] WHEN [action] THEN [graceful behavior]
Rules:
Assess and document ONLY relevant NFRs:
| NFR | Requirement | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | Page load < Xs, API response < Yms | Lighthouse, k6 |
| Security | Auth required, input validation, OWASP top 10 | sentinel scan |
| Scalability | Expected users, data volume | Load test target |
| Reliability | Uptime target, error budget | Monitoring threshold |
| Accessibility | WCAG 2.2 AA | Axe audit |
Only include NFRs relevant to this specific task. Don't generate a generic checklist.
Produce structured output and hand off to plan:
# Requirements Document: [Feature Name]
Created: [date] | BA Session: [summary]
## Context
[Problem statement — 2-3 sentences]
## Stakeholders
- Primary user: [who]
- Affected systems: [what]
## User Stories
[from Step 5]
## Scope
### In Scope
[from Step 4]
### Out of Scope
[from Step 4]
### Assumptions
[from Step 4]
## Non-Functional Requirements
[from Step 6]
## Dependencies
[from Step 4]
## Risks
- [risk]: [mitigation]
## Next Step
→ Hand off to rune:plan for implementation planning
Save to .rune/features/<feature-name>/requirements.md
# Requirements Document: [Feature Name]
Created: [date] | BA Session: [summary]
## Context
[Problem statement — 2-3 sentences]
## Stakeholders
- Primary user: [who, technical level, workflow context]
- Affected systems: [existing services, databases, APIs]
## User Stories
US-1: As a [persona], I want to [action] so that [benefit]
AC-1.1: GIVEN [context] WHEN [action] THEN [result]
AC-1.2: GIVEN [error case] WHEN [action] THEN [error handling]
## Scope
### In Scope
- [feature/behavior 1]
- [feature/behavior 2]
### Out of Scope
- [explicitly excluded 1]
### Assumptions
- [assumption — risk if wrong]
## Non-Functional Requirements
| NFR | Requirement | Measurement |
|-----|-------------|-------------|
| [Performance/Security/etc.] | [specific target] | [how to verify] |
## Dependencies
- [API/service/library]: [status — available/needs setup]
## Risks
- [risk]: [mitigation strategy]
## Decision Classification
| Category | Meaning | Example |
|----------|---------|---------|
| **Decisions** (locked) | User confirmed — agent MUST follow | "Use PostgreSQL, not MongoDB" |
| **Discretion** (agent decides) | User trusts agent judgment | "Pick the best validation library" |
| **Deferred** (out of scope) | Explicitly NOT this task | "Mobile app — future phase" |
Plan gates on Decision compliance — Discretion items don't need approval.
## Next Step
→ Hand off to rune:plan for implementation planning
Saved to .rune/features/<feature-name>/requirements.md
| Artifact | Format | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements document | Markdown | .rune/features/<feature-name>/requirements.md |
| User stories with acceptance criteria | Markdown (GIVEN/WHEN/THEN) | inline + requirements.md |
| Scope definition (in/out/assumptions) | Markdown sections | requirements.md |
| Non-functional requirements table | Markdown table | requirements.md |
Known failure modes for this skill. Check these before declaring done.
| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Skipping questions because "requirements are obvious" | CRITICAL | HARD-GATE: 5 questions mandatory, even for "simple" tasks |
| Answering own questions instead of asking user | HIGH | Questions require USER input — BA doesn't guess |
| Producing implementation details (HOW) instead of requirements (WHAT) | HIGH | BA outputs requirements doc → plan outputs implementation |
| All-at-once question dump (asking 5 questions in one message) | MEDIUM | One question at a time, wait for answer before next |
| Missing hidden requirements (auth, error handling, edge cases) | HIGH | Step 3 checklist is mandatory scan |
| Requirements doc too verbose (>500 lines) | MEDIUM | Max 200 lines — concise, actionable, testable |
| Skipping BA for "simple" features that turn out complex | HIGH | Let cook's complexity detection trigger BA, not user judgment |
| Recommending shortcuts without Completeness Score | MEDIUM | Step 3.5: every option needs X/10 score + dual effort estimate (human vs AI). "90% coverage" is a red flag when 100% costs 15 min more |
.rune/features/<name>/requirements.mdplan for implementation planning~3000-6000 tokens input, ~1500-3000 tokens output. Opus for deep requirement analysis — understanding WHAT to build is the most expensive mistake to get wrong.
npx claudepluginhub tquoc229/rune2plugins reuse this skill
First indexed Jul 13, 2026
Guides completion of development work by verifying tests, detecting environment, and presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup.
Enforces test-driven development: write failing test first, then minimal code to pass. Use when implementing features or bugfixes.
Guides creation and editing of skills using test-driven development with pressure scenarios and subagents to verify agent compliance.