Requirements look perfect on paper. Every stakeholder nods in agreement. Then development starts and suddenly everyone realises the spec never mentioned what happens when two users edit the same record simultaneously. The Requirements Simulator template catches these gaps before they become expensive rework.
How to Use This Template
Copy the markdown below and fill in the bracketed [ ] information. Paste this into your AI assistant along with your draft specifications.
## Requirements Simulator Protocol
### SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
**Feature Name:** `[Feature or system being specified]`
**User Stories:**
[Paste your user stories or acceptance criteria]
**API/Interface Definition (if available):**
[Paste OpenAPI spec, endpoint definitions, or UI mockup descriptions]
### SIMULATION INSTRUCTIONS
You are now `[System Name]`, a fully functional implementation of the specification above. Your task is to process simulated user inputs and expose gaps in the requirements.
**Simulation Rules:**
1. Respond based ONLY on the provided specification
2. If a scenario is not covered, explicitly state: "SPECIFICATION GAP: [describe what is missing]"
3. Do NOT invent behaviour; highlight ambiguity instead
4. After each gap, propose a clarifying user story
### SIMULATION SCENARIOS
**Scenario 1: Happy Path Validation**
User action: `[Standard user flow from start to finish]`
Simulate the complete flow and verify all steps are covered.
**Scenario 2: Edge Case Discovery**
Process these inputs and identify any gaps:
- Input A: `[Valid but unusual input, e.g., empty optional fields]`
- Input B: `[Boundary condition, e.g., maximum values]`
- Input C: `[Concurrent operation, e.g., same user, multiple tabs]`
**Scenario 3: Error Handling Coverage**
Attempt these error conditions:
- Error 1: `[Invalid input type]`
- Error 2: `[Missing required field]`
- Error 3: `[System unavailable, e.g., database timeout]`
- Error 4: `[Permission denied scenario]`
**Scenario 4: State Transitions**
Walk through these state changes:
- From `[State A]` to `[State B]`: `[Trigger event]`
- From `[State B]` to `[State C]`: `[Trigger event]`
- Reverse transition: `[Can user undo? Is this specified?]`
### GAP REPORT
After simulation, provide:
1. List of all SPECIFICATION GAPs discovered
2. Proposed user stories to address each gap
3. Questions that need stakeholder clarification
Why This Template Works
addition to project timelines attributed to rework from requirements discovered late in development.
-
Role-playing forces honesty: By instructing the AI to act as the system rather than a critic, you get objective gap detection without the model trying to be helpful by filling in blanks itself.
-
Systematic scenario coverage: The template guides you through happy paths, edge cases, errors, and state transitions, ensuring no category of requirement gets overlooked.
-
Actionable output: Instead of vague "this might be ambiguous" feedback, you get concrete "SPECIFICATION GAP" flags with proposed user stories ready to add to your backlog.
Research-Backed Best Practices
The challenge with requirements is that humans are excellent at filling gaps unconsciously. You read a spec and your brain supplies the missing context because you understand the intent. But developers implementing that spec might have different context entirely, leading to the telephone game in reverse.
This simulation approach surfaces assumptions before they become implementation decisions. The key is the strict instruction to NOT invent behaviour. Most AI assistants want to be helpful, so they will quietly fill gaps. This template explicitly forbids that, turning helpfulness into precise gap identification.
The Faster Way
Running requirements simulations manually for every feature becomes tedious quickly. 4ge automates this process by analysing your visual user flows and acceptance criteria, then generating simulation scenarios automatically. Each decision point in your flow becomes a test case. Each edge case you missed gets flagged with a suggested user story before development begins.