spec-dependency-analysis
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze dependencies and separate enablement from feature work.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- agent-ix/quoinedited, first seen Jun 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- agent-ix/quoin★ 2072% 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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- spec-app-reviewSkill
- spec-blueprintSkill
- spec-evidence-analysisSkill
- spec-failure-domain-analysisSkill
- specifySkill
- spec-integrity-analysisSkill
- spec-matrixSkill
- spec-object-reviewSkill
- spec-reviewSkill
- spec-risk-complexity-analysisSkill
- spec-scope-boundary-analysisSkill
- spec-security-analysisSkill
- spec-to-planSkill
- spec-us-to-frSkill
- spec-write-frSkill
- spec-write-itSkill
- spec-write-nfrSkill
- spec-write-strSkill
- spec-write-usSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Before spec-to-plan — spec-to-plan consumes the DAG.
- Distinctive: line 13
After all FRs have been written and reviewed.
- Distinctive: line 26
Verify acyclicity: If any cycle is found, the spec is malformed — break the cycle by introducing a separation FR or merging the cyclic …
- Distinctive: line 28
Produce the deliverable: Use the template below.
- Very specific: line 72
Every FR/StR/NFR appears in the classification table exactly once.
- Distinctive: line 73
Every edge in the graph corresponds to an explicit prerequisite — no "soft" dependencies.
≈ “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
Dependency & Ordering Analysis
Identify prerequisite relationships between requirements so work can be sequenced. The deliverable is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of FRs/StRs/NFRs in logical order, not a schedule.
When to use
- Before
spec-to-plan—spec-to-planconsumes the DAG. - After all FRs have been written and reviewed.
- Whenever new FRs are added that may unblock or block existing work.
Process
- Identify prerequisite edges. For each FR/StR/NFR, list every other requirement that MUST be satisfied before this one can be implemented. Express each as
A → B(A is prerequisite to B). Classify each requirement.
- Enablement — frameworks, abstractions, scaffolding, schema/migration, shared libs. Has no business-visible behavior on its own.
- Feature — business or user-visible behavior.
Rule: Enablement requirements MUST be tasked before any feature that depends on them.
- Verify acyclicity. If any cycle is found, the spec is malformed — break the cycle by introducing a separation FR or merging the cyclic requirements.
- Produce the deliverable. Use the template below.
Deliverable template
Record output in spec/analysis/dependency.md (or as a section in spec/spec.md § 7 if your project keeps analysis inline).
# Dependency Analysis
## Classification
| Requirement | Class | Rationale |
|-------------|-------|-----------|
| FR-001 | Enablement | Defines the auth middleware all feature FRs use |
| FR-002 | Enablement | Database schema for user records |
| FR-003 | Feature | Login flow — depends on FR-001, FR-002 |
| FR-004 | Feature | Password reset — depends on FR-001, FR-002 |
## Dependency Graph
```mermaid
graph TD
FR-001[FR-001: Auth middleware]
FR-002[FR-002: User schema]
FR-003[FR-003: Login flow]
FR-004[FR-004: Password reset]
FR-001 --> FR-003
FR-002 --> FR-003
FR-001 --> FR-004
FR-002 --> FR-004
```
## Topological Order (suggested implementation sequence)
1. FR-001, FR-002 (enablement, parallelizable)
2. FR-003, FR-004 (features, parallelizable after enablement)
## Cycles
None detected.Acceptance Criteria
- Every FR/StR/NFR appears in the classification table exactly once.
- Every edge in the graph corresponds to an explicit prerequisite — no "soft" dependencies.
- No cycles.
- Topological order respects: all enablement before any feature that depends on it.
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.

