A software requirements specification is effective at conveying the requirements to the developers charged with implementing the requirements and testers who verify the specifications. A sentence containing more than one requirement that is joined by an and will be left partially implemented, and both readers will claim they were correct.
Our writers have worked on specifications for regulated, contracted and internal software. They know the difference between a requirement, a design note and a wish, and they keep the three in separate sections.
Numbering is the mechanism that allows a system to be organized, partitioned, and estimated. Once every statement is atomic and carries a stable identifier, a large system stops being a wall of text. This allows the construction of a numbering system which allows for calculation and verification of statements. Clarity comes from the discipline of numbering.
Cross-references are a structured specification’s Achilles Heel. With REQ-041 referring to REQ-017, on a different subsystem. There are multiple instances of the same requirement written in different ways. Increasingly, numbering systems look consistent, leading to delayed testing and usually occurring at integration.
The writer will be based off your product material and engineering lead sessions. To let you review conveniently, they broke the text into small numbered sections. The writer won’t address non-functional requirements. These would include performance, availability, and security. When those requirements are intertwined with the feature description, they are easily waived.
We internally audit the document before sending it out. Each identifier is unique. Every cross-reference points to the requirement(s) it cites. No requirement is shown multiple times using different wording. Each non-functional target is associated with a number(s) and a measurement Criterion. The findings list is included with the draft.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical software requirement | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 500 | $50 | $0.50 | $50.50 |
| Standard | 1,000 | $100 | $1 | $101 |
| In-depth | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes. Send two or three pieces you like the sound of, or your style guide. Matching an established voice is ordinary work for a writer and close to impossible for a model that has never read your back catalogue.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
We work with the template you prefer, whether that be IEEE 830, ISO 29148, or your preferred house template. Should you have no preferences, we will propose a template and provide the rationale for the selection and tradeoffs, as a heavier template will prolong the time for review. Hence, you may not wish to spend.
Yes we will ask which of the two your team uses. Iterative delivery modeling focuses on user stories with associated acceptance criteria. Contracts - or audits - focus on numbered shall statements. Teams often run into issues with adopting these frameworks if they attempt to use the two frameworks together in the same document.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Before drafting, the client sent over eleven questions. Two of the questions asked about failure states that we had never documented before. Responding to these questions took me a morning to complete, but now the internal notes have improved. The guide is the second best thing that came from this order.
The steps are detailed and match interface options precisely. I thought images were included, but they aren’t, and it even says that. It just wasn’t obvious where. It took a day to add them, which is still better than the vendor supplied documentation.
I dropped all nine samples in a fresh workspace, and they all compiled. Two included comments that pointed out a gotcha with our SDK that isn’t documented, so I added those comments to the documentation.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees