spec-failure-domain-analysis
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Identify unstated failure modes, identity confusion, purity gaps, and topological edge cases in ISO-style specifications.
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★ 2058% 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-dependency-analysisSkill
- spec-evidence-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
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Run this skill during spec review to catch common omissions before implementation.
- Very specific: line 11
After drafting FR/NFR/StR requirements
- Very specific: line 12
Before spec-to-plan (part of its readiness gate)
- Distinctive: line 33
Document if read-only is required for simulation/reasoning
- Distinctive: line 41
Document any missing constraints as proposed additions:
≈ “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
Spec Failure Domain Analysis
Run this skill during spec review to catch common omissions before implementation.
When to Use
- After drafting FR/NFR/StR requirements
- Before
spec-to-plan(part of its readiness gate) - During peer review of specifications
Checklist
1. Extension Points (Trust Boundaries)
For each callback, hook, observer, or plugin interface:
- Is failure behavior defined? Options:
- Strict: Failure aborts operation (data integrity)
- Resilient: Failure is logged/suppressed (availability)
- Configurable: User chooses policy
2. Entity Identity
For each core domain entity (State, Event, User, etc.):
- Is the uniqueness key explicit?
- Bad: "A set of states"
- Good: "States unique by
nameproperty"
3. Evaluation Purity
For each user-supplied logic (guards, filters, validators):
- Are side-effects constrained?
- Document if read-only is required for simulation/reasoning
4. Topological Robustness
For each graph/tree algorithm (search, path-finding):
- Is termination guaranteed on cycles?
- Are worst-case structures considered? (deep nesting, disconnected nodes)
Output
Document any missing constraints as proposed additions:
- NFR: Non-functional (resilience, performance)
- StR: Structural (integrity, purity)
- FR: Functional (if behavior is undefined)
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.

