speckit-analyze

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Speckit Analyze Skill

## User Input

```text
$ARGUMENTS
```

You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

## Goal

Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items across the three core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/speckit.tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.

## Operating Constraints

**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually).

**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`.specify/memory/constitution.md`) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution conflicts are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the spec, plan, or tasks—not dilution, reinterpretation, or silent ignoring of the principle. If a principle itself needs to change, that must occur in a separate, explicit constitution update outside `/speckit.analyze`.

## Execution Steps

### 1. Initialize Analysis Context

Run `.specify/scripts/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -RequireTasks -IncludeTasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths:

- SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md
- PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md
- TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md

Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).
For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").

### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)

Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:

**From spec.md:**

- Overview/Context
- Functional Requirements
- Non-Functional Requirements
- User Stories
- Edge Cases (if present)

**From plan.md:**

- Architecture/stack choices
- Data Model references
- Phases
- Technical constraints

**From tasks.md:**

- Task IDs
- Descriptions
- Phase grouping
- Parallel markers [P]
- Referenced file paths

**From constitution:**

- Load `.specify/memory/constitution.md` for principle validation

### 3. Build Semantic Models

Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):

- **Requirements inventory**: Each functional + non-functional requirement with a stable key (derive slug based on imperative phrase; e.g., "User can upload file" → `user-can-upload-file`)
- **User story/action inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria
- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases)
- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements

### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)

Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary.

#### A. Duplication Detection

- Identify near-duplicate requirements
- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation

#### B. Ambiguity Detection

- Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria
- Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, `<placeholder>`, etc.)

#### C. Underspecification

- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome
- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment
- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec/plan

#### D. Constitution Alignment

- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle
- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution

#### E. Coverage Gaps

- Requirements with zero associated tasks
- Tasks with no mapped requirement/story
- Non-functional requirements not reflected in tasks (e.g., performance, security)

#### F. Inconsistency

- Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files)
- Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa)
- Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note)
- Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue)

### 5. Severity Assignment

Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:

- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion
- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case
- **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order

From foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills, Apache-2.0.

More from foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills