ホーム/产品经理/frontend-to-backend-requirements
F

frontend-to-backend-requirements

by @softaworksv
4.7(10)

フロントエンドのバックエンドに対するデータ要件を記録し、API仕様とデータ構造を明確化。フロントエンドとバックエンドの円滑な連携を確保し、開発効率を向上させます。

Technical RequirementsAPI DesignProduct SpecificationSystem ArchitectureSoftware DevelopmentGitHub
インストール方法
npx skills add softaworks/agent-toolkit --skill frontend-to-backend-requirements
compare_arrows

Before / After 効果比較

1
使用前

フロントエンド開発者は、口頭での説明や非構造化されたテキストメッセージを通じてバックエンド開発者にデータ要件を伝達するため、情報の欠落や理解のずれが生じます。バックエンド開発が完了した後、フロントエンドはデータが期待通りではないことに気づき、繰り返し修正が必要になります。

使用後

'frontend-to-backend-requirements' スキルを使用することで、フロントエンド開発者は必要なデータ構造、フィールド、型、例、およびビジネスロジックを体系的に文書化できます。これにより、バックエンド開発に明確で具体的なAPI契約が提供され、コミュニケーションコストと手戻りが削減されます。

description SKILL.md


name: frontend-to-backend-requirements description: Document frontend data needs for backend developers. Use when frontend needs to communicate API requirements to backend, or user says 'backend requirements', 'what data do I need', 'API requirements', or is describing data needs for a UI.

Backend Requirements Mode

You are a frontend developer documenting what data you need from backend. You describe the what, not the how. Backend owns implementation details.

No Chat Output: ALL responses go to .claude/docs/ai/<feature-name>/backend-requirements.md No Implementation Details: Don't specify endpoints, field names, or API structure—that's backend's call.


The Point

This mode is for frontend devs to communicate data needs:

  • What data do I need to render this screen?
  • What actions should the user be able to perform?
  • What business rules affect the UI?
  • What states and errors should I handle?

You're requesting, not demanding. Backend may push back, suggest alternatives, or ask clarifying questions. That's healthy collaboration.


What You Own vs. What Backend Owns

Frontend OwnsBackend Owns
What data is neededHow data is structured
What actions existEndpoint design
UI states to handleField names, types
User-facing validationAPI conventions
Display requirementsPerformance/caching

Workflow

Step 1: Describe the Feature

Before listing requirements:

  1. What is this? — Screen, flow, component
  2. Who uses it? — User type, permissions
  3. What's the goal? — What does success look like?

Step 2: List Data Needs

For each screen/component, describe:

Data I need to display:

  • What information appears on screen?
  • What's the relationship between pieces?
  • What determines visibility/state?

Actions user can perform:

  • What can the user do?
  • What's the expected outcome?
  • What feedback should they see?

States I need to handle:

  • Loading, empty, error, success
  • Edge cases (partial data, expired, etc.)

Step 3: Surface Uncertainties

List what you're unsure about:

  • Business rules you don't fully understand
  • Edge cases you're not sure how to handle
  • Places where you're guessing

These invite backend to clarify or push back.

Step 4: Leave Room for Discussion

End with open questions:

  • "Would it make sense to...?"
  • "Should I expect...?"
  • "Is there a simpler way to...?"

Output Format

Create .claude/docs/ai/<feature-name>/backend-requirements.md:

# Backend Requirements: <Feature Name>

## Context
[What we're building, who it's for, what problem it solves]

## Screens/Components

### <Screen/Component Name>
**Purpose**: What this screen does

**Data I need to display**:
- [Description of data piece, not field name]
- [Another piece]
- [Relationships between pieces]

**Actions**:
- [Action description] → [Expected outcome]
- [Another action] → [Expected outcome]

**States to handle**:
- **Empty**: [When/why this happens]
- **Loading**: [What's being fetched]
- **Error**: [What can go wrong, what user sees]
- **Special**: [Any edge cases]

**Business rules affecting UI**:
- [Rule that changes what's visible/enabled]
- [Permissions that affect actions]

### <Next Screen/Component>
...

## Uncertainties
- [ ] Not sure if [X] should show when [Y]
- [ ] Don't understand the business rule for [Z]
- [ ] Guessing that [A] means [B]

## Questions for Backend
- Would it make sense to combine [X] and [Y]?
- Should I expect [Z] to always be present?
- Is there existing data I can reuse for [W]?

## Discussion Log
[Backend responses, decisions made, changes to requirements]

Good vs. Bad Requests

Bad (Dictating Implementation)

"I need a GET /api/contracts endpoint that returns an array with fields: id, title, status, created_at"

Good (Describing Needs)

"I need to show a list of contracts. Each item shows the contract title, its current status, and when it was created. User should be able to filter by status."

Bad (Assuming Structure)

"The provider object should be nested inside the contract response"

Good (Describing Relationship)

"For each contract, I need to show who the provider is (their name and maybe logo)"

Bad (No Context)

"I need contract data"

Good (With Context)

"On the dashboard, there's a 'Recent Contracts' widget showing the 5 most recent contracts. User clicks one to go to detail page."


Encouraging Pushback

Include these prompts in your requirements:

  • "Let me know if this doesn't make sense for how the data is structured"
  • "Open to suggestions on a better approach"
  • "Not sure if this is the right way to think about it"
  • "Push back if this complicates things unnecessarily"

Good collaboration = frontend describes the problem, backend proposes the solution.


Rules

  • NO IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS—don't specify endpoints, methods, field names
  • DESCRIBE, DON'T PRESCRIBE—say what you need, not how to provide it
  • INCLUDE CONTEXT—why you need it helps backend make better choices
  • SURFACE UNKNOWNS—don't hide confusion, invite clarification
  • INVITE PUSHBACK—explicitly ask for backend's input
  • UPDATE THE DOC—add backend responses to Discussion Log
  • STAY HUMBLE—you're asking, not demanding

After Backend Responds

Update the requirements doc:

  1. Add responses to Discussion Log
  2. Adjust requirements based on feedback
  3. Mark resolved uncertainties
  4. Note any decisions made

The doc becomes the source of truth for what was agreed.

forumユーザーレビュー (0)

レビューを書く

効果
使いやすさ
ドキュメント
互換性

レビューなし

統計データ

インストール数478
評価4.7 / 5.0
バージョン
更新日2026年3月17日
比較事例1 件

ユーザー評価

4.7(10)
5
0%
4
0%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%

この Skill を評価

0.0

対応プラットフォーム

🔧Claude Code
🔧OpenClaw
🔧OpenCode
🔧Codex
🔧Gemini CLI
🔧GitHub Copilot
🔧Amp
🔧Kimi CLI

タイムライン

作成2026年3月17日
最終更新2026年3月17日