requirement-forge-refiner

# Requirement Forge Refiner

## What This Produces

- **Output**: `.lattice/standards/requirement-standards.md` (or custom path from `.lattice/config.yaml` → `paths.requirement_standards`)
- **Two modes**:
  - **Overlay** (`mode: overlay`): A slim document containing only sections that differ from the built-in defaults. The `requirement-quality` atom reads its embedded `defaults.md` first, then applies this document's sections on top. This is the expected common case.
  - **Override** (`mode: override`): A comprehensive standalone document that fully replaces the atom's embedded defaults. For teams whose product process differs fundamentally from the defaults.
- **Default mode**: Overlay — produces only what the team wants to change
- **Config key**: `paths.requirement_standards` in `.lattice/config.yaml`
- **Consumed by**: `requirement-quality` atom (via config resolution) → `requirement-forge` molecule (composes the atom)
- **Template**: Read `./assets/template.md` for the full document structure, default content, and interview guidance comments

## Scope Clarification

This refiner defines how requirements are *structured and expressed* for this project. It does not define:

- What to build (that is the requirement-forge molecule's job)
- Architecture or technical design (that is the architecture-refiner's job)
- Domain modeling patterns (that is the ddd-refiner's job)

The standards produced here answer: what is an epic, what is a feature, what is a scenario, how are ACs written, how are features named and prioritized. These are the rules the `requirement-quality` atom enforces — the molecule composes the atom and inherits those rules automatically.

## Before You Begin

### Check for an existing standards document

1. Read `.lattice/config.yaml` — check `paths.requirement_standards`.
2. If the path exists, read that file. Ask the user:
   - "You already have a requirement standards document. Would you like to **revise** it (update specific sections), **start fresh** (new interview), or **add to it** (add new sections)?"
   - Revise: load the existing document, walk through only the sections the user wants to change, update in place.
   - Start fresh: proceed with the full interview flow below.
   - Add to it: skip to the "New Sections" part of the interview.
3. If no config or no existing document, proceed with the full interview.

### Ask two orienting questions first

Before the formal interview, ask:

1. "Does your team already have a way of writing requirements — any existing PRDs, Confluence templates, or Jira conventions I should be aware of?"
2. "Is there a specific product domain or terminology I should know before we define the standards?"

These two questions are the only free-form listening before the structured interview begins. Synthesize what you hear and carry it forward — do not ask follow-up questions at this stage.

## Choosing the Mode

Present the three options:

"How would you like to define your requirement standards?

1. **Customize specific sections** (overlay) — Keep the built-in defaults and change only what differs for your project. This produces a slim document. Most teams choose this.
2. **Define everything from scratch** (override) — Walk through all sections and produce a comprehensive standalone document.
3. **Add project-specific sections only** (overlay with additions) — Keep all defaults as-is and add new sections, such as domain terminology or custom status workflows.

The built-in defaults cover standard product spec practices well. Option 1 is recommended unless your team's conventions are fundamentally different."

Map the choice:
- Options 1 and 3 → `mode: overlay`
- Option 2 → `mode: override`

## Facilitation Approach

### Conversation style

- **One section at a time.** Do not present all questions at once. Walk through the template sequentially.
- **Defaults-first.** For each section, briefly summarize the default, then ask if it matches. Do not read defaults verbatim — summarize key points and ask.
- **Propose, don't just ask.** When the user's answer is ambiguous, propose the most reasonable interpretation and ask them to confirm or correct. "It sounds like you want MoSCoW priorities — so 'Must', 'Should', 'Could', 'Won't'. Is that right?"
- **Record decisions, not discussion.** The output document reads as a specification. "We discussed X and decided Y" is wrong. "Y" is right.
- **Challenge weak definitions.** If the user defines a "feature" so broadly it would encompass an entire epic, push back: "That scope sounds like an epic — a feature should be independently designable in one design-blueprint session. Can we tighten the definition?"

### For overlay mode

This should be fast. Many sections will be "keep as-is."

1. Present each section's default in 2–3 sentences.
2. Ask: "Does this match your project, or would you like to change it?"
3. If matches → skip it (section will NOT appear in the output).
4. If changes wanted → discuss specifics, record the changes.
5. After all sections, ask: "Anything to add that isn't covered — domain-specific terminology, custom fields, team conventions?"
6. Only changed or added sections appear in the output document.

### For override mode

Every section gets attention and appears in the output.

1. Walk through every section in full detail.
2. User confirms, modifies, or replaces each section.
3. All sections appear in the output.

### Common scenarios

- **"I agree with everything"** → No custom document needed. "The embedded defaults are already active. No custom document is needed — requirement-forge will use the defaults automatically."
- **"We use MoSCoW priorities"** → Overlay §6 only.
- **"We call them 'use cases' not 'scenarios'"** → Overlay §4 (rename + update any description that references "scenario").
- **"We have a longer status workflow"** → Overlay §7.
- **"We have domain-specific terms that should be consistent"** → Overlay with additions — add §10 Domain Terminology.
- **"Our feat