A prompt workflow for extracting requirements, flagging ambiguity, and drafting acceptance criteria without silently inventing scope.
A requirements summary is a useful orientation document. An implementation handoff needs more structure: expected behavior, dependencies, unanswered questions, and criteria someone can verify.
The workflow below turns a requirements document into that structure. It uses a fictional CSV-import feature as an example and keeps inferred requirements separate from approved ones.
Extract before interpreting
Start with the current specification. Include its version or date so reviewers know which document the output describes.
Summarize this specification for the implementing engineer. Extract user goals, explicit requirements, dependencies, constraints, and out-of-scope items. For each requirement, identify the source heading or passage when available. Mark unsupported details as unknown.
You can use iWeaver to summarize source documents before developing more structured notes. Keep the original available during review; a requested source reference still needs checking.
Look for questions that affect implementation
Suppose the specification says, “Users can upload a CSV and preview the records before importing.” That leaves several questions open:
- Is there a maximum file size?
- What happens if a row contains invalid data?
- Can a user import valid rows while skipping invalid ones?
- How are duplicate records handled?
These are questions to resolve, not requirements to add automatically.
Ask:
Analyze the extracted requirements for missing behavior and conflicting statements. Separate each explicit requirement from a question or assumption. Explain which unanswered questions could change implementation or testing.
Generate a reviewable handoff table
Request a new output format from the analysis:
Create a table with columns for requirement, source reference, proposed acceptance criterion, dependency, and open question. Label every acceptance criterion as proposed until reviewed. Do not invent numerical limits or error-handling rules.
An illustrative row might look like this:
| Requirement | Proposed acceptance criterion | Open question |
|---|---|---|
| Preview CSV records before import | Given a supported CSV, the user can inspect a preview before confirming import. | Which CSV encodings and delimiters are supported? |
The example criterion is deliberately incomplete where the source is incomplete. That helps the reviewer see what still requires a product decision.
Produce the ticket draft last
After the team resolves the open questions, update the source material and ask for a ticket draft containing scope, approved criteria, dependencies, and test notes.
Do not use the AI-generated table as evidence that a requirement was approved. Approval comes from the team's process, and the ticket should reflect it.
This approach gives document summarization a concrete engineering purpose. The output progresses from a readable overview to a handoff that makes uncertainty visible before it turns into code.
Top comments (0)