Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension


Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
The table of contents is too big for display.
Diff view
Diff view
  •  
  •  
  •  
193 changes: 193 additions & 0 deletions .RULES_ANALYSIS.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
# Analysis of .rules File

## File Identity

**File:** `.rules` (hidden configuration file)
**Status:** Untracked in git (local only)
**Size:** 13,370 bytes (417 lines)
**MD5 Hash:** 5051392a2a6d7b831f4050eabe28da90
**Permissions:** 644 (readable, owner writable)

---

## Creation Timeline

### File Timestamps
| Aspect | Timestamp | Details |
|--------|-----------|---------|
| **Birth** | 2025-11-08 02:01:56 UTC+11 | Created ~Nov 8, 2025 |
| **Modified** | 2025-11-09 13:41:47 UTC+11 | Last modified ~Nov 9, 2025 |
| **Changed** | 2025-11-09 13:41:47 UTC+11 | Same as modified (no chmod after) |
| **Accessed** | 2025-11-17 11:56:27 UTC+11 | Accessed during current session |

**Approximate Age:** 9 days old at time of analysis

---

## Content Analysis

### Format & Structure
- **Markup:** Markdown with bash/javascript code blocks
- **Content Type:** Configuration guide / ruleset documentation
- **Purpose:** Task Master AI agent integration instructions

### Content Source
`.rules` is **essentially identical to the beginning of `AGENTS.md`**, with one key difference:

**What's in `.rules`:**
- Lines 1-417 (complete file)
- Core Task Master commands and workflows
- Claude Code integration
- MCP setup
- Standard development practices

**What's in `AGENTS.md` but NOT in `.rules`:**
- Lines 3-40: Branch-specific guidance (scientific, main, Jules)
- Environment compatibility notes
- Branch-specific AGENTS_{branch-name}.md files
- Jules IDE warnings

**Relationship:** `.rules` appears to be a **stripped, minimal version** of `AGENTS.md`

---

## Tool Detection

### By Content Markers

**Evidence for Claude Code generation:**
```
Line 50: "- `CLAUDE.md` - Auto-loaded context for Claude Code (this file)"
Line 72: "├── .claude/"
Line 215: "mcp__task_master_ai__*"
```

**Evidence for Task Master tool:**
```
Lines 8-36: All task-master CLI commands documented
Lines 79-103: MCP server configuration (task-master-ai)
Lines 105-129: Task Master MCP tools reference
```

### Original Tool: **Task Master AI CLI**

The `.rules` file documents:
1. **Task Master CLI commands** - Primary focus
2. **MCP integration** - Task Master provides MCP server
3. **Claude Code integration** - Integrates with Claude Code
4. **Workflow patterns** - Standard agentic development loops

---

## Creation Hypothesis

### Most Likely Scenario

**Created by:** IDE configuration system or agent context manager
**Actual source:** Derived from AGENTS.md (likely via automated extraction)
**When:** November 8-9, 2025
**Why:**
- `.rules` is a common pattern for IDE rule files (Cline, Cursor, etc.)
- Stripped version suggests automated filtering
- Contains no branch-specific info (suggests automated minimization)
- Untracked in git (local development artifact)

### Tool That Created It

Three possibilities:

1. **RuleSync** (Rule synchronization tool)
- Evidence: `.rulesync/` and `.rulesyncignore` exist in repo
- Purpose matches: Sync rules across IDEs
- Likely extracted AGENTS.md → .rules

2. **IDE Auto-Configuration** (Cursor, Cline, etc.)
- Evidence: `.clinerules/`, `.cursor/` directories exist
- Some IDEs auto-create `.rules` files
- Context extracted from AGENTS.md

3. **Task Master Initialization**
- Evidence: `task-master init` command exists
- Could auto-generate rules from agent guide
- Less likely given minimal content

---

## What It Contains

### Documentation Sections
| Section | Lines | Purpose |
|---------|-------|---------|
| Task Master Commands | 8-36 | CLI reference |
| Project Structure | 38-77 | Directory layout |
| MCP Integration | 79-129 | Server configuration |
| Claude Workflows | 131-207 | Development patterns |
| Tool Allowlist | 209-224 | Claude Code permissions |
| Configuration | 226-252 | Model setup |
| Task Structure | 254-285 | Task ID format |
| Best Practices | 287-337 | Workflow patterns |
| Troubleshooting | 339-370 | Common issues |

### Missing (Compared to AGENTS.md)
- Branch-specific guidance
- Environment compatibility warnings
- Jules IDE information
- Scientific/main branch differences

---

## Current Status

**Should it be tracked in git?**

| Aspect | Assessment |
|--------|-----------|
| **Purpose** | Configuration guide (local reference) |
| **Change frequency** | Low (static documentation) |
| **Repo ownership** | Belongs in repo for consistency |
| **Branch relevance** | Common across all branches |
| **Current state** | Untracked (development artifact) |

**Recommendation:** Add to git if it's a standard IDE rule file, keep untracked if auto-generated.

---

## Related Files

```
├── .rules ← This file (untracked)
├── .rulesync/ ← Rule synchronization
├── .rulesyncignore ← Rules sync exclusions
├── AGENTS.md ← Source (tracked)
├── .clinerules/ ← Cline IDE rules (tracked)
├── .cursor/rules/ ← Cursor IDE rules (tracked)
├── .windsurf/rules/ ← Windsurf IDE rules (tracked)
├── .roo/rules/ ← Roo IDE rules (tracked)
├── .kilo/rules/ ← Kilo Code rules (tracked)
└── .claude/ ← Claude Code config (tracked)
```

---

## Conclusion

**Created:** November 8-9, 2025 (likely automated)
**By:** IDE rule generator or RuleSync tool
**Purpose:** Provide stripped-down Task Master rules for IDE integration
**Status:** Local development artifact, not tracked in git
**Action:** Determine if RuleSync should create/manage this file, or if it's redundant with existing tracked rule files

---

## Hash Verification

To verify no external modifications:
```bash
echo "5051392a2a6d7b831f4050eabe28da90 .rules" | md5sum -c
```

Expected: `OK`

---

*Analysis completed 2025-11-17*
184 changes: 184 additions & 0 deletions .agents/commands/speckit.analyze.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
---
description: Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
---

## User Input

```text
$ARGUMENTS
```

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

## Operating Constraints

**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually).

**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`.specify/memory/constitution.md`) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution 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 constitution update outside `/speckit.analyze`.

## Execution Steps

### 1. Initialize Analysis Context

Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. 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).
For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot").

### 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 constitution:**

- Load `.specify/memory/constitution.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)
- **Constitution 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. Constitution Alignment

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

#### 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. Severity Assignment

Use this heuristic to prioritize findings:

- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality
- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion
- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case
- **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order

### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report

Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:

## Specification Analysis Report

| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |
|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|
| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |

(Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.)

**Coverage Summary Table:**

| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|

**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)

**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)

**Metrics:**

- Total Requirements
- Total Tasks
- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task)
- Ambiguity Count
- Duplication Count
- Critical Issues Count

### 7. Provide Next Actions

At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:

- If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `/speckit.implement`
- If only LOW/MEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions
- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., "Run /speckit.specify with refinement", "Run /speckit.plan to adjust architecture", "Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'"

### 8. Offer Remediation

Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)

## Operating Principles

### Context Efficiency

- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: Focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation
- **Progressive disclosure**: Load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis
- **Token-efficient output**: Limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow
- **Deterministic results**: Rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts

### Analysis Guidelines

- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis)
- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent, report them accurately)
- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)
- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns)
- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)

## Context

$ARGUMENTS
Loading
Loading