Appearance

Tech-agnostic requirements ​

/pulse-re holds one strict rule: Success Criteria must be technology-neutral. Technology choices belong in a separate "Technical NFRs" section, which feeds the plan.

Why this matters ​

When a Success Criterion says "OAuth 2.0 authentication with JWT tokens", the spec has already locked in a technology before the architect has made the decision. That is:

  • Premature: the technical choice was made without architecture review
  • Fragile: the architect is boxed in. If OAuth does not fit, the Feature spec itself has to change.
  • Opaque: the spec hides why authentication matters and what the user-facing outcome is

The fix is simple. Success Criteria describe user-facing outcomes. Technical NFRs describe implementation constraints. Architecture translates NFRs into ADRs.

The separation ​

Success CriteriaTechnical NFRs
What the user getsHow it is built
Measurable, verifiableTechnology choices, concrete numbers
Tech-neutralTech-specific
Example: "Users are authenticated securely"Example: "Auth via OAuth 2.0 / Azure AD B2C"
Example: "System handles 100K concurrent users"Example: "PostgreSQL 15 with read replicas"

Forbidden terms in Success Criteria ​

Success Criteria may not contain any of these (non-exhaustive list):

  • Auth / Security: OAuth, JWT, SAML, OIDC, TLS, RBAC, mTLS
  • Databases: SQL, NoSQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Redis, Elasticsearch
  • Frontend: React, Vue, Angular, Svelte
  • Backend: Python, Node, Java, Go, Rust, Spring, FastAPI
  • Protocols: REST, GraphQL, gRPC, HTTP, WebSocket, SSE, WebRTC
  • Cloud / Ops: AWS, Azure, GCP, Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, CI/CD
  • Data formats: JSON, YAML, XML, Protobuf, Avro
  • Performance: "milliseconds", "< 200ms", "p95", "throughput"
  • Caching: "cache", "Redis cache", "CDN"
  • Messaging: Kafka, RabbitMQ, SQS, Kinesis

See skills/pulse-re/references/tech-agnostic-rules.md for the complete, enforced list.

Transformation examples ​

Forbidden (tech-specific)Allowed (tech-agnostic)
"Response time < 200ms""Users experience sub-second response"
"OAuth 2.0 authentication""Secure authentication using industry standards"
"PostgreSQL with indexes""System efficiently handles 100K+ records"
"REST API with JSON""Machine-readable interface for integrations"
"99.9% uptime SLA""System available during business hours"
"Redis caching""Frequently accessed data loads instantly"
"RBAC authorization""Users only see data relevant to their role"
"WebSocket real-time""Users see updates without refreshing"
"Processing takes < 5 seconds""Users receive results without perceivable delay"

Where the forbidden terms go ​

Nothing is lost. The tech terms move from Success Criteria to the Technical NFRs section of the same Feature file. Example:

markdown
## Success Criteria
- SC-01: Users are authenticated securely using industry standards.
- SC-02: User sessions persist across browser restarts without
  requiring re-login.

## Technical NFRs
- **Security**: OAuth 2.0 / OIDC via Azure AD B2C. JWT tokens with
  15-minute access and 7-day refresh.
- **Session persistence**: HttpOnly cookies with Secure + SameSite=Strict.

The architect sees both when creating ADRs. The business side sees only the SC: clean, user-outcome-focused, verifiable.

Enforcement in the skill ​

/pulse-re scans every Success Criterion for forbidden terms before writing the Feature file. If a term is found, the skill prompts the user to rephrase:

FEAT-01-03 SC-03 contains "PostgreSQL". That's a technology term.
Let's move it to Technical NFRs.

Rewrite SC-03 as a user-facing outcome. Example: "System efficiently
handles 100K+ records without data loss."

Should I update the file?

When the rule does not apply ​

Technical NFRs contain tech terms. That is the point. The forbidden list is only for Success Criteria, not for Technical NFRs, Definition of Done, or ADRs.

Benefits ​

  • Decouples business from implementation: Success Criteria stay stable even if the architect changes the tech choice
  • Keeps the spec readable for non-technical stakeholders
  • Forces explicit architecture decisions: tech choices must have an ADR, not just a mention in a Feature file
  • Enables traceability: every SC traces to a user-facing benefit, not an implementation detail

See also ​