Validates cross-artifact consistency and detects breaking changes during feature analysis. Use when running /analyze command, validating spec-plan alignment, checking task-implementation consistency, or identifying API/database/UI breaking changes before deployment. (project)
Scanned 2/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add marcusgoll/Spec-Flow --skill analysis-phase --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Analysis Phase?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/marcusgoll-analysis-phase)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: analysis-phase
description: Validates cross-artifact consistency and detects breaking changes during feature analysis. Use when running /analyze command, validating spec-plan alignment, checking task-implementation consistency, or identifying API/database/UI breaking changes before deployment. (project)
allowed-tools: Read, Edit, Grep, Bash
---
<objective>
Validates cross-artifact consistency and detects breaking changes during the /analyze phase. Ensures spec requirements align with plan components, tasks match implementation, and breaking changes are identified before deployment.
</objective>
<quick_start>
Validate cross-artifact consistency and detect breaking changes:
1. Check spec → plan → tasks alignment
2. Detect breaking changes (API, database, UI, auth)
3. Validate dependencies
4. Generate analysis-report.md with findings
**Inputs**: spec.md, plan.md, tasks.md
**Outputs**: analysis-report.md
</quick_start>
<workflow>
<step number="1">
**Check spec-plan consistency**
Read spec.md requirements, verify each has corresponding plan component. Flag missing mappings in analysis report.
See references/examples.md for grep commands.
</step>
<step number="2">
**Verify task-implementation alignment**
Read plan.md components, verify each broken into tasks in tasks.md.
Validate:
- Each plan component has ≥1 task
- Task acceptance criteria match spec success criteria
- No orphaned tasks (tasks without plan component)
</step>
<step number="3">
**Detect breaking changes**
Scan for patterns indicating breaking changes:
- **API changes**: Endpoint signature modifications, required parameter additions, response format changes
- **Database changes**: Schema modifications, required field additions, migrations affecting existing data
- **UI changes**: Component interface changes, prop requirement additions
- **Auth changes**: Permission model modifications, authentication flow changes
Flag with impact level (Low/Medium/High) using reference rubric.
</step>
<step number="4">
**Validate dependencies**
Cross-reference:
- Imports and integrations mentioned in plan
- External dependencies in tasks
- Integration points in spec
Verify all dependencies documented and accounted for.
</step>
<step number="5">
**Generate analysis report**
Create specs/NNN-slug/analysis-report.md:
```markdown
# Analysis Report
## Consistency Check
- Spec-Plan: [✓/✗] Description
- Plan-Tasks: [✓/✗] Description
## Breaking Changes
- [High/Medium/Low] Description and impact
## Dependency Validation
- [✓/✗] Dependencies documented
## Recommendations
- Action items to fix inconsistencies
```
Update state.yaml: `analysis.status = completed`
</step>
</workflow>
<validation>
After analysis, verify:
- All spec requirements have plan component coverage
- All plan components have task breakdown
- Breaking changes flagged with impact level (Low/Medium/High)
- Analysis report generated with actionable findings
- No orphaned artifacts (tasks without plan, plan without spec)
</validation>
<anti_patterns>
<pitfall name="missing_breaking_changes">
**❌ Don't**: Assume no breaking changes without scanning
**✅ Do**: Explicitly check API signatures, database schema, required fields, auth changes
**Why**: Breaking changes missed in analysis cause production issues post-deployment
</pitfall>
<pitfall name="inconsistent_artifacts">
**❌ Don't**: Assume spec and plan are aligned
**✅ Do**: Explicitly validate each spec requirement has corresponding plan component
**Why**: Missing mappings lead to incomplete implementation
</pitfall>
<pitfall name="no_cross_reference">
**❌ Don't**: Skip dependency validation
**✅ Do**: Cross-reference all imports, integrations, external dependencies
**Why**: Undocumented dependencies cause integration failures
</pitfall>
<pitfall name="vague_findings">
**❌ Don't**: Write vague findings like "inconsistencies found"
**✅ Do**: Specify exact artifacts, line numbers, and recommended fixes
**Why**: Actionable findings enable quick remediation
</pitfall>
</anti_patterns>
<success_criteria>
- [ ] All spec requirements mapped to plan components (no gaps)
- [ ] All plan components broken into tasks (no orphans)
- [ ] Breaking changes documented with impact level (High/Medium/Low)
- [ ] Dependencies validated and documented
- [ ] analysis-report.md generated with actionable findings
- [ ] state.yaml updated (analysis.status = completed)
</success_criteria>
<references>
See references/ for:
- Cross-artifact consistency matrix
- Breaking change detection patterns
- Impact assessment rubric
- Real-world analysis examples
</references>
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!