mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Rapid quality assurance with Requirements Smells

arXiv 1611.08847 ↗First posted 27 Nov 2016cs.SEcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Bad requirements quality can cause expensive consequences during the software development lifecycle, especially if iterations are long and feedback comes late. %-- the faster a problem is found, the cheaper it is to fix. This makes explicit the need of a lightweight detection mechanism of requirements quality violations. We aim at a light-weight static requirements analysis approach that allows for rapid checks immediately when requirements are written down. We transfer the concept of code smells to Requirements Engineering as Requirements Smells. To evaluate the benefits and limitations, we define Requirements Smells, realize our concepts for a smell detection in a prototype called Smella and apply Smella in a series of cases provided by three industrial and a university context. The automatic detection yields an average precision of 59% at an average recall of 82% with high variation. The evaluation in practical environments indicates benefits such as an increase of the awareness of quality defects. Yet, some smells were not clearly distinguishable. Lightweight smell detection can uncover many practically relevant requirements defects in a reasonably precise way. Although some smells need to be defined more clearly, smell detection provides a helpful means to support quality assurance in Requirements Engineering, for instance, as a supplement to reviews.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 27 Nov 2016.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 2; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 7.

11 papers.