Menu

Individual skill

analyze

0upvotes

Use when constitution, spec, plan and tasks all exist and you want them cross-read against each other before any code is written — the rsc-sdd pre-implementation gate. Reports coverage gaps, contradictions, duplication, ambiguity and scope drift; edits nothing. NOT the task breakdown (that is `tasks`), NOT the coding (that is `implement`), NOT the post-code test gate (that is `verify`), NOT resolving ambiguity (that is `clarify`).

skills/analyze/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit d9d6bb338f66cc1e23998585e580a0ea45bbcb82

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
561
Repository last updated
Nov 4, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Analyze — the pre-implementation consistency gate

You have a **constitution**, a **spec**, a **plan** and a **task list**. Four artifacts written at four different moments, by a mind that drifted a little each time. `analyze` reads all four *against each other* and surfaces where they disagree. It is the cheapest place in the whole chain to catch a problem — a contradiction found here costs a sentence; the same contradiction found mid-implement costs a rewrite.

Sixth phase of the rsc-sdd chain (`constitution → specify → clarify → plan → tasks → analyze → implement`); the method itself lives in `../asdd/SKILL.md`. It is a **gate, not a worker**: it produces a report and stops. The user reads the findings and decides what to fix, and which phase to send each fix back to.

**Report only. Resolve nothing.** Never edit the constitution, spec, plan or tasks; never open a code file to "just fix it"; never silently reconcile a contradiction by picking a side. This one is absolute because a gate that quietly fixes things stops being a gate: the user never learns the spec was wrong, the plan built on the old assumption stays stale, and the "consistency check" has manufactured a new inconsistency. Name the conflict, show both sides with locations, propose where it should be resolved, hand the decision back.

**Model tier: `heavy`** (adversarial cross-reading). Resolve and apply it per `../asdd/references/model-routing.md`; routing is off unless `models.enabled: true` in `02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/config.yaml`.

**Register.** Read `technical_level` in `02-DOCS/wiki/harness/user-profile.md` before reporting; with no profile, use analogies and say the harness has not set the register yet. The register changes how the report reads, never what gets checked; the six analyses always run in full.

The report is the same for every reader: a finding table (severity, the two artifacts, the conflict in one line), a one-line *why it matters* per CRITICAL/HIGH finding, and per finding the recommended resolution phase and the trade-off of leaving it. For a `non-technical` reader, explain the consequence at implement time with an everyday analogy so they can choose.