maister:requirements-critic

To validate ambiguous user stories, you can apply structured checks like problem-vs-solution framing analysis and CRUD-disguised-as-domain-logic detection to identify incomplete requirements and reformulate them into clear, testable specs with explicit observable behavior.

CRUD disguised as domain logic occurs when a requirement merely describes a status change, like setting a status to Reserved, without defining observable behavior, concurrency rules, or reversibility, which requires interactive reformulation to clarify the actual domain logic.

You reframe vague ticket requirements by applying interactive reformulation techniques that probe quantifier boundaries and map hidden domain decisions, transforming simple status-change requests into specs detailing concurrency, availability blocking, and cancellation logic.

Yes, you can use requirements critique for business analysis workflows to ensure business alignment, verify observable behavior, and uncover hidden domain decisions, preventing misaligned development outputs and wasted rework before implementation begins.

Automated ticket review for spec validation requires interactive input to map hidden domain decisions and probe rigid quantifier boundaries, meaning it cannot autonomously resolve all ambiguities without human context regarding business alignment and edge case coverage.