Spec-Kit Analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
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 editing).
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.
Constitution Loading (REQUIRED)
Before ANY action, load the project constitution:
- •
Read constitution:
bashcat .specify/memory/constitution.md 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_CONSTITUTION"
- •
If file doesn't exist:
codeERROR: Project constitution not found at .specify/memory/constitution.md Cannot proceed without constitution. Run: /speckit-00-constitution
- •
Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements.
Prerequisites Check
- •
Run prerequisites check:
bash.tessl/tiles/tessl-labs/spec-kit/skills/speckit-01-specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks
- •
Parse JSON for
FEATURE_DIRandAVAILABLE_DOCS. - •
Derive absolute paths:
- •SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md
- •PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md
- •TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md
- •
If any required file is missing:
codeERROR: Required artifact missing. Missing: [spec.md | plan.md | tasks.md] Run the appropriate skill to create the missing artifact: - spec.md: /speckit-01-specify <feature description> - plan.md: /speckit-03-plan - tasks.md: /speckit-06-tasks
Execution Steps
1. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)
Load only minimal necessary context from each artifact:
From spec.md:
- •Overview/Context
- •Functional Requirements
- •Non-Functional Requirements
- •User Stories
- •Edge Cases
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
2. Build Semantic Models
Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):
- •Requirements inventory: Each functional + non-functional requirement with stable key
- •User story/action inventory: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria
- •Task coverage mapping: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories
- •Constitution rule set: Principle names and normative statements
3. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)
Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total.
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>)
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. Phase Separation Violations (CRITICAL)
Check each artifact for content that belongs elsewhere:
Constitution violations (tech in governance):
- •Programming languages, frameworks, databases mentioned
- •Specific tools or versions
- •Infrastructure or deployment details
Spec violations (implementation in requirements):
- •Framework or library references
- •API implementation details (REST endpoints, GraphQL schemas)
- •Database schemas or table structures
- •Architecture patterns (microservices, serverless)
- •Code organization or file structures
Plan violations (governance in technical):
- •Project-wide principles or "laws" (should reference constitution)
- •Non-negotiable rules that apply beyond this feature
- •Team workflow or process requirements
- •Quality standards not specific to this implementation
Report format:
PHASE SEPARATION VIOLATIONS: - [CRITICAL] constitution.md line 45: "Use Python 3.11" (tech in governance) - [CRITICAL] spec.md line 120: "REST API endpoint /users" (impl in spec) - [HIGH] plan.md line 30: "All code must have tests" (governance in plan)
G. Coverage Gaps
- •Requirements with zero associated tasks
- •Tasks with no mapped requirement/story
- •Non-functional requirements not reflected in tasks
H. Inconsistency
- •Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files)
- •Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa)
- •Task ordering contradictions
- •Conflicting requirements
4. Severity Assignment
- •CRITICAL: Violates constitution MUST, phase separation violation, 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
5. Produce Analysis Report
Output a Markdown report (no file writes):
## Specification Analysis Report | ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation | |----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------| | A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing | **Coverage Summary Table:** | Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes | |-----------------|-----------|----------|-------| **Phase Separation Violations:** (if any) | Artifact | Line | Violation | Severity | |----------|------|-----------|----------| **Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any) **Unmapped Tasks:** (if any) **Metrics:** - Total Requirements - Total Tasks - Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task) - Ambiguity Count - Duplication Count - Critical Issues Count
6. Next Actions
At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:
- •If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before
/speckit-08-implement - •If only LOW/MEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions
- •Provide explicit command suggestions
7. Offer Remediation
Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)
Operating Principles
Context Efficiency
- •Minimal high-signal tokens: Focus on actionable findings
- •Progressive disclosure: Load artifacts incrementally
- •Token-efficient output: Limit findings table to 50 rows
- •Deterministic results: Rerunning should produce consistent IDs and counts
Analysis Guidelines
- •NEVER modify files (this is read-only analysis)
- •NEVER hallucinate missing sections (report accurately)
- •Prioritize constitution violations (always CRITICAL)
- •Use examples over exhaustive rules (cite specific instances)
- •Report zero issues gracefully (emit success report with coverage statistics)
Next Steps
After analysis:
- •If CRITICAL issues: Resolve them first, then re-run
/speckit-07-analyze - •If no CRITICAL issues: Run
/speckit-08-implementto execute the implementation
The implement skill will perform its own prerequisite checks before proceeding.