fix(commands): rename NFR references to success criteria in analyze and clarify#1935
Merged
mnriem merged 2 commits intogithub:mainfrom Mar 24, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the analyze and clarify command templates so they reference the spec template’s Success Criteria / Measurable Outcomes section instead of inconsistent “Non-Functional Requirements” terminology, improving alignment across the spec → analyze workflow.
Changes:
analyze.md: Switches spec-loading guidance from “Non-Functional Requirements” to “Success Criteria” and refines how Success Criteria are considered for coverage.clarify.md: Routes non-functional constraints intoSuccess Criteria > Measurable Outcomesto matchspec-template.md.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| templates/commands/clarify.md | Updates clarification integration guidance to place non-functional constraints under Success Criteria → Measurable Outcomes. |
| templates/commands/analyze.md | Updates analyzed spec sections and coverage-gap language to use Success Criteria instead of Non-Functional Requirements. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
mnriem
requested changes
Mar 23, 2026
Collaborator
mnriem
left a comment
mnriem
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please address Copilot feedback
ismaelJimenez
force-pushed
the
fix/nfr-to-success-criteria
branch
from
3a11311 to
d5d2cff
Compare
…ith spec template - Reword "non-functional targets" to "measurable outcomes" to match the spec template's broader scope (performance, user success, business impact) - Use explicit FR-/SC- identifiers as primary stable keys in the requirements inventory instead of derived slugs alone
ismaelJimenez
force-pushed
the
fix/nfr-to-success-criteria
branch
from
d5d2cff to
5258cd4
Compare
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
mnriem
approved these changes
Mar 24, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
jonasbokim
added a commit
to Jonas-Construction-Software/jonas-spec-kit-dev
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2026
…nc-main-2026-03-25 * upstream/main: (90 commits) fix(ps1): replace null-conditional operator for PowerShell 5.1 compatibility (github#1975) chore: bump version to 0.4.2 (github#1973) feat: Auto-register ai-skills for extensions whenever applicable (github#1840) docs: add manual testing guide for slash command validation (github#1955) Add AIDE, Extensify, and Presetify to community extensions (github#1961) docs: add community presets section to main README (github#1960) docs: move community extensions table to main README for discoverability (github#1959) docs(readme): consolidate Community Friends sections and fix ToC anchors (github#1958) fix(commands): rename NFR references to success criteria in analyze and clarify (github#1935) Add Community Friends section to README (github#1956) docs: add Community Friends section with Spec Kit Assistant VS Code extension (github#1944) chore: bump version to 0.4.1 (github#1953) Add checkpoint extension (github#1947) fix(scripts): prioritize .specify over git for repo root detection (github#1933) docs: add AIDE extension demo to community projects (github#1943) fix(templates): add missing Assumptions section to spec template (github#1939) chore: bump version to 0.4.0 (github#1937) fix(cli): add allow_unicode=True and encoding="utf-8" to YAML I/O (github#1936) fix(codex): native skills fallback refresh + legacy prompt suppression (github#1930) feat(cli): embed core pack in wheel for offline/air-gapped deployment (github#1803) ...
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Replaces "Non-Functional Requirements" terminology with "Success Criteria" in the
analyzeandclarifycommand templates to fix a mismatch with the spec template.The problem:
The
analyzecommand instructs the agent to load a "Non-Functional Requirements" section from specs — but that section is not part of the spec template. Thespecifycommand generates specs usingspec-template.md, which defines a "Success Criteria" section (with "Measurable Outcomes" underneath), not a "Non-Functional Requirements" section. This meansanalyzewas looking for a section name that doesn't match what the spec actually contains, forcing the agent to infer mappings or miss the Success Criteria content when assessing coverage gaps.The only way NFR-like content could appear in a spec was through the
clarifycommand, which uses its own label ("Non-Functional Quality Attributes") that doesn't match the spec template's actual section name either. This meant non-functional content could end up scattered — partially under "Success Criteria > Measurable Outcomes" and partially under a clarify-only "Non-Functional / Quality Attributes" heading — and only when a user's clarification response happened to surface a non-functional constraint. In the typical workflow (specify→analyze), these labels never align.What this PR does:
Testing
uv run specify --helpuv sync --extra test && uv run pytest(435 passed)AI Disclosure