spectra-analyze
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze artifact consistency for a change
4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- DanSnow/hoarder-pipetteedited, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- leoho0722/naver-blog-image-downloaderword for word, first seen Aug 31, 2026
- PsychQuant/claude-hot-limitword for word, first seen Jul 1, 2026
- harrychuang/cursor-skillsword for word, first seen Jun 17, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 3
- harrychuang/cursor-skills★ 19100% same
- leoho0722/naver-blog-image-downloader★ 2100% same
- PsychQuant/claude-hot-limit★ 0100% same
Edited · 1
- DanSnow/hoarder-pipette★ 9814% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- spectra-applySkill
- spectra-archiveSkill
- spectra-askSkill
- spectra-auditSkill
- spectra-commitSkill
- spectra-debugSkill
- spectra-discussSkill
- spectra-driftSkill
- spectra-ingestSkill
- spectra-proposeSkill
- spectra-verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 33
If not provided, infer from context or run spectra list --json to auto-select.
- Distinctive: line 71
Add any additional findings to the report.
- Distinctive: line 74
If CRITICAL findings: "Found N issue(s) worth addressing.
- Very specific: line 75
If only warnings/suggestions: Note them briefly, then recommend proceeding with /spectra-apply
- Very specific: line 76
If clean: "Artifacts look consistent" and suggest /spectra-apply
- Very specific: line 80
When spectra status --change "<name>" --json shows isComplete: true, run this analysis automatically before recommending /spectra-apply.
- Distinctive: line 84
Read-only: NEVER modify files
- Distinctive: line 85
Do NOT prompt for change selection if it can be inferred
- Distinctive: line 86
Keep output concise - this runs inline, not as a separate workflow
- Distinctive: line 87
If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, ask the same questions as plain text and wait for the user's response
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Claude fork context
This generated Claude Code skill runs with context: fork. The rules in this section take precedence over the shared analyze body below.
When no change name is provided, run spectra list --json. Auto-select only when there is exactly one active change. If there are zero active changes or more than one active change, return the candidate list or empty-state message and ask the main thread to rerun /spectra-analyze <change-name>. Do NOT ask an interactive selection question inside the fork.
Analyze artifact consistency for a change. Can be invoked directly or triggered automatically when all artifacts are complete.
Input: Optionally specify a change name (e.g., /spectra-analyze add-auth). If omitted, infer from conversation context or auto-select if only one active change exists.
Prerequisites: This skill requires the spectra CLI. If any spectra command fails with "command not found" or similar, report the error and STOP.
Steps
Determine change name
If not provided, infer from context or run
spectra list --jsonto auto-select.Run programmatic analysis
spectra analyze <change-name> --jsonThis returns structured JSON with:
dimensions: Array of{ dimension, status, finding_count }for Coverage, Consistency, Ambiguity, Gapsfindings: Array of{ id, dimension, severity, location, summary, recommendation }artifacts_analyzed/artifacts_missing: Which artifacts were available
Present results
Format the JSON output as a readable summary:
## Artifact Analysis: <change-name> | Dimension | Status | |---------------|--------------------------| | Coverage | <status> | | Consistency | <status> | | Ambiguity | <status> | | Gaps | <status> |Group findings by severity (Critical > Warning > Suggestion) with locations and recommendations.
Supplement with AI semantic analysis (optional)
The programmatic analyzer catches structural issues. For deeper semantic analysis, also read the artifacts and check for:
- Design decisions that contradict spec requirements
- Tasks referencing work outside proposal scope
- Risks in design without corresponding spec coverage
- Logical inconsistencies between artifacts
Add any additional findings to the report.
- Recommend next steps
- If CRITICAL findings: "Found N issue(s) worth addressing. Want to fix these before implementing?"
- If only warnings/suggestions: Note them briefly, then recommend proceeding with
/spectra-apply - If clean: "Artifacts look consistent" and suggest
/spectra-apply
Passive Trigger
When spectra status --change "<name>" --json shows isComplete: true, run this analysis automatically before recommending /spectra-apply.
Guardrails
- Read-only: NEVER modify files
- Do NOT prompt for change selection if it can be inferred
- Keep output concise - this runs inline, not as a separate workflow
- If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, ask the same questions as plain text and wait for the user's response
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

