spec-kitty.analyze

## Startup Upgrade Check

Run this at most once per active agent session before the first Spec Kitty command workflow.
If you already ran `spec-kitty upgrade --agent-check --json` in this session, reuse that result and skip this block.
Do not run or announce an upgrade check again for later Spec Kitty commands in the same session.
Otherwise, before continuing, run:

```bash
spec-kitty upgrade --agent-check --json
```

If JSON `action` is `none`, continue.
If `action` is `auto_upgrade`, run `upgrade_command` before continuing. If it fails, tell the user and continue with the current Spec Kitty version.
If `action` is `guidance`, show `upgrade_note` briefly, then continue.
If `action` is `prompt`, ask the user with the host-native question UI when available:

`Spec Kitty {latest_version} is available. You are on {installed_version}. Upgrade now?`

Use these choices:

1. Upgrade now (recommended) - record `upgrade_now`, run `upgrade_command`, then continue.
2. Always keep me up to date - record `always`, run `upgrade_command`, then continue.
3. Not now - record `not_now`, then continue.
4. Never ask again - record `never_ask`, then continue.

Record the selected choice before continuing:

```bash
spec-kitty upgrade --agent-choice <upgrade_now|always|not_now|never_ask> --agent-latest <latest_version> --json
```

If no host-native question UI is available, present the same four choices in plain text and wait for the user.
In non-interactive hosts, choose `not_now` and continue.


## User Input

The content of the user's message that invoked this skill (everything after the skill invocation token, e.g. after `/spec-kitty.<command>` or `$spec-kitty.<command>`) is the User Input referenced elsewhere in these instructions.

You **MUST** consider this 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 `/tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.

## Operating Constraints

**NON-REMEDIATING**: Do **not** modify `spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`, WP files, source code, or any remediation target. The only permitted file mutation is persisting this command's report to `kitty-specs/<mission>/analysis-report.md` via `spec-kitty agent mission record-analysis`. Offer an optional remediation plan only after the report is persisted (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually).

**Charter Authority**: The project charter (`/charter/charter.md`) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Charter 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 charter update outside `/analyze`.

## Execution Steps

### 1. Initialize Analysis Context

Run `spec-kitty agent mission check-prerequisites --json --include-tasks --mission <mission-slug>` once from repo root and parse JSON for feature_dir, available_docs, target_branch, and base_branch. 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).

### 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 charter:**

- Load `/charter/charter.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)
- **Charter 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. Charter Alignment

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

#### 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. Sev