version: "1.0.2" name: requirements-test-coverage-mapper description: 'Maps requirements (PRD, user stories, acceptance criteria) to test coverage via a Requirements Traceability Matrix, exposing coverage gaps, risks, test levels, prioritization, and automation candidates. Use when mapping requirements to tests, checking coverage completeness for a PRD or user story, finding missing acceptance criteria, or building a risk-based regression strategy.' argument-hint: 'PRD, user stories, or acceptance criteria to map, plus scope boundaries and known constraints' user-invocable: true

Requirements → Test Coverage Mapper (RTM)

This skill turns a PRD, user stories, acceptance criteria, and constraints into a traceability-driven test coverage plan:

• a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)
• a gap & ambiguity report
• test design recommendations across levels (unit/API/UI/e2e/non-functional)
• automation candidates and CI gating suggestions

The output is designed to be used as a living artifact and single source of truth for coverage, readiness, and auditability.

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to:

• Validate coverage completeness before/after implementation
• Convert PRD/user stories into a test plan that is traceable and reviewable
• Identify missing acceptance criteria, ambiguous requirements, or hidden scope
• Support change impact analysis when requirements evolve
• Build a risk-based regression strategy or release readiness assessment

Operational Workflow

Phase 0: Strategy Selection (Context First)

Classify the work to adjust rigor and output depth:

• Delivery stage: MVP / Iteration / Hardening / Release / Hotfix
• Domain risk: Low / Medium / High (payments, auth, compliance = high)
• Change surface: UI / API / Data / Infra / Cross-cutting
• AI criticality: None / Supporting / Core
• Target tooling (optional): Jira / Azure DevOps / TestRail / GitHub Issues

If unknown, mark as TBD and proceed with safe defaults.

Phase 1: Discovery

Ask targeted questions where the answer would change the coverage plan. Cover these areas:

1. Test basis source - PRD link/text? user stories? AC? designs? (what is the "source of truth"?)
2. Scope boundaries - what is explicitly in/out? any non-goals?
3. Quality attributes - performance, security, accessibility, reliability, observability expectations?
4. Data & environments - test envs available, data seeding/masking rules, third-party dependencies?
5. Release constraints - deadline, MVP cuts, rollout type (flagged, staged, big-bang)?
6. Definition of Done / acceptance - who signs off and what evidence is required?

If the user cannot answer (or wants to move fast), capture the gaps as explicit assumptions in the output and proceed.

Phase 2: Normalization (Make Requirements Traceable)

Normalize input into atomic, testable requirements:

• Split compound requirements into smaller "testable statements"
• Assign stable IDs if missing: REQ-001… (requirements), US-001… (user stories), AC-001… (acceptance criteria)
• Mark ambiguous statements as NEEDS_CLARIFICATION

Phase 3: Coverage Design (Levels + Risks + Data)

For each requirement, propose coverage across:

• Functional: positive/negative, edge cases, permissions
• Integration: APIs, events, DB, third parties
• UX: key flows, accessibility, error messaging
• Non-functional: performance, security, reliability, observability
• AI-specific (if applicable): evaluation, drift, hallucinations/failure modes, fallbacks

Use risk-based thinking: assign impact (H/M/L) and likelihood (H/M/L), and derive priority and test depth from risk.

Phase 4: Produce the Output

Follow the strict output schema in ./resources/coverage-map-template.md — document metadata, executive coverage summary, RTM table, scenario catalog, gap report, risk-based prioritization, automation/CI recommendations, and assumptions/change-impact notes, in that order.

Quality Rules (Non-Negotiable)

DO

• Make every requirement atomic and testable
• Use stable IDs for traceability
• Flag unknowns; don't invent constraints
• Prefer measurable outcomes and concrete expected results
• Recommend test levels intentionally (not everything must be E2E)

DON'T

• Don't hallucinate requirements, flows, or data models
• Don't produce only UI tests (must consider unit/API/NFR)
• Don't accept ambiguous requirements without logging them as gaps
• Don't mark coverage "complete" if AC is missing or unclear

Self-Review Checklist

Before final output:

• [ ] Every requirement has an ID and is atomic
• [ ] Every requirement maps to ≥1 scenario OR is flagged missing
• [ ] Ambiguities are captured as explicit questions
• [ ] Risk is assigned and used to prioritize
• [ ] Non-functional coverage is addressed where relevant
• [ ] Assumptions are listed explicitly

Resource Map

• ./resources/coverage-map-template.md - the strict output schema (RTM table, scenario catalog, gap report, prioritization tiers) with a worked example

Related Skills

• prd-generator - when requirements themselves still need to be written before mapping
• verifying-acceptance-criteria - when a specific build must be checked against the acceptance criteria
• analyzing-regression-scope - when the question is tactical retest scope after a change rather than full traceability
• designing-functional-tests - when RTM scenarios should expand into detailed test cases

Definition of Done

This skill is complete when:

• every requirement is atomic, has a stable ID, and maps to at least one scenario or an explicit MISSING_TEST flag
• gaps and ambiguities are logged with concrete resolution questions
• prioritization tiers are risk-derived and actionable
• automation and CI recommendations are justified per scenario
• assumptions and change-impact notes are explicit