analyze

name	analyze
description	Analyze a collection of documents to build a knowledge map, identify themes, find gaps, duplicates, conflicts, and staleness, then produce an organized analysis with improvement recommendations. Designed for document ecosystems (cross-repo docs, research collections, mixed-format doc repos) where the challenge is understanding the landscape, not auditing against code.
instructions	Follow the workflow below exactly. This skill is exploratory — it reads a collection of documents, builds a mental model of the landscape, and produces a structured analysis. Unlike /audit which checks docs against code, /analyze focuses on the documents themselves as a body of knowledge. Do NOT modify any source documents. The output is an analysis report with a document map, theme clusters, and improvement recommendations.

Analyze — Document Landscape Analysis & Knowledge Mapping

Map, understand, and evaluate a collection of documents as a body of knowledge. Identify structure, themes, gaps, redundancies, conflicts, and staleness. Produce an actionable analysis with reorganization recommendations.

Core Principles

1. Landscape-first: Build the map before judging — understand what exists before critiquing
2. Theme-driven: Group documents by what they're about, not just where they live
3. Conflict detection: Find contradictions between documents that may confuse readers
4. Staleness awareness: Identify documents that may be outdated based on content signals
5. Non-destructive: Only reads and reports — never modifies source documents
6. Reorganization as suggestion: Propose better structures, don't impose them

When to Use Analyze vs. Audit

Situation	Use
Single project with docs/ and source code	/spec-forge:audit
Docs-only repo with mixed content	/spec-forge:analyze
Cross-repo documentation ecosystem	/spec-forge:analyze
Research notes, ideas, decision records	/spec-forge:analyze
API docs need checking against code	/spec-forge:audit
"I have a mess of docs and need to understand them"	/spec-forge:analyze

Workflow

Step 1: Determine Scope

Parse the arguments to determine what to analyze:

1. If a path argument is provided (e.g., /spec-forge:analyze ../../aipartnerup-docs), use that as the root
2. If no path, use the current working directory's docs/ directory
3. If multiple paths are provided, analyze all of them as one collection

Use ask_user to understand the user's goals:

• What is this collection? (e.g., "ecosystem docs for multiple products", "research notes", "mixed specs and decisions")
• What do you want to understand? Options:
  • Full landscape analysis (recommended for first time)
  • Find conflicts and contradictions
  • Find gaps and missing coverage
  • Suggest reorganization
  • All of the above

Step 2: Document Discovery & Inventory

Scan all documents in the target path(s):

1. Glob for all markdown files recursively
2. Read every document (first 300 lines for large files) to understand content
3. Extract metadata for each document:
   • File path and directory position
   • Title (first H1 or filename)
   • Approximate word count
   • Last modified date (git log if available, file stat otherwise)
   • Document type classification (see below)
   • Key entities mentioned (product names, system names, technologies)
   • Key claims or decisions stated
   • Internal links to other documents
   • Apparent audience (developers, product, leadership, external)

Document type classification:

Type	Signals
vision	Mission, vision, strategy, roadmap, long-term goals
architecture	System design, component diagrams, data flow, technical architecture
spec	Requirements, specifications, protocols, standards, conformance
research	Analysis, investigation, comparison, feasibility study, market research
decision	ADR, decision record, strategy choice, trade-off analysis
idea	Brainstorm, proposal, exploration, "what if", future thinking
guide	How-to, tutorial, getting started, cookbook
reference	API reference, data dictionary, glossary, type mapping
blueprint	Master plan, project plan, implementation roadmap
report	Status report, audit report, analysis output
meta	README, index, navigation, table of contents

Display the inventory:

Document Collection: {name}
  Root: {path}
  Total documents: {N}
  Total words: ~{N}k

  Directory Structure:
    {dir}/           ({n} docs) — {apparent purpose}
    {dir}/{subdir}/  ({n} docs) — {apparent purpose}
    ...

  By Type:
    vision:       {n} docs
    architecture: {n} docs
    research:     {n} docs
    ...

Step 3: Theme & Cluster Analysis

Group documents by what they're actually about, regardless of directory structure:

3.1 Identify Themes

Read through all documents and identify the major themes/topics that emerge:

• Product/system names mentioned across multiple docs
• Recurring concepts or concerns
• Shared vocabulary or domain terms

3.2 Build Theme Clusters

For each theme, list which documents contribute to it:

Theme Clusters:

  "{Theme A}" — {description}
    Primary:    {docs that are mainly about this}
    Secondary:  {docs that touch on this}
    Coverage:   {Good / Partial / Sparse}

  "{Theme B}" — {description}
    Primary:    ...
    Secondary:  ...
    Coverage:   ...

3.3 Cross-Reference Map

Build a document relationship map:

• Which docs reference each other?
• Which docs should reference each other but don't?
• Are there isolated documents with no connections?

Generate a Mermaid graph showing document relationships.

Step 4: Conflict & Contradiction Detection

Systematically compare documents for conflicts:

4.1 Factual Conflicts

Look for places where two documents state contradictory facts:

• Different architecture descriptions for the same system
• Conflicting technology choices or version numbers
• Contradictory timelines or priorities
• Inconsistent naming (same thing called different names, or same name for different things)

For each conflict:

CONFLICT-{NNN}: {title}
  Doc A: {path} — states "{claim A}" (section: {section})
  Doc B: {path} — states "{claim B}" (section: {section})
  Nature: {factual contradiction / naming inconsistency / version mismatch / priority conflict}
  Impact: {who gets confused and how}
  Resolution suggestion: {which doc is likely correct, or how to reconcile}

4.2 Strategic Conflicts

Look for higher-level misalignments:

• Vision docs that contradict architecture decisions
• Research findings that aren't reflected in decisions
• Ideas that overlap with or contradict existing plans
• Decisions that seem to ignore relevant research

4.3 Temporal Conflicts

Look for staleness-related contradictions:

• Old docs describing plans that newer docs have superseded
• Documents referencing deprecated technologies or abandoned features
• Timelines or milestones that have clearly passed without update

Step 5: Gap Analysis

Identify what's missing from the document collection:

5.1 Coverage Gaps

Based on the themes and types identified:

• Are there themes with no vision/strategy doc?
• Are there systems with no architecture doc?
• Are there decisions with no supporting research?
• Are there ideas that were never evaluated or decided on?
• Is there a getting-started guide for new team members?

5.2 Depth Gaps

Some areas may be documented but not deeply enough:

• Vision without concrete roadmap
• Architecture without component details
• Research without conclusions or recommendations
• Decisions without recorded rationale

5.3 Audience Gaps

Check if all relevant audiences are served:

• Developer documentation (architecture, API, guides)
• Product documentation (vision, requirements, roadmap)
• Leadership documentation (strategy, metrics, status)
• External documentation (README, getting started, examples)

Step 6: Redundancy Detection

Find documents that overlap significantly:

1. Near-duplicates: Documents covering the same topic with slightly different content
2. Superseded docs: Older versions that should have been replaced but weren't
3. Scattered coverage: Same topic spread across multiple docs that could be consolidated

For each redundancy:

REDUNDANCY-{NNN}: {title}
  Documents: {list of overlapping docs}
  Overlap: {what they share}
  Recommendation: {merge into X / archive Y / consolidate into new doc Z}

Step 7: Staleness Assessment

Evaluate document freshness:

1. Age signals: Last modified date, referenced dates in content
2. Content signals: Mentions of deprecated technologies, past tense for future plans, "TODO" items that should have been resolved
3. Context signals: Referenced systems that no longer exist, links that would be broken

Classify each document:

• Current: Content appears up-to-date
• Possibly stale: Some signals of age but content may still be valid
• Likely stale: Strong signals that content is outdated
• Archival: Document is historical record, not meant to be current

Step 8: Generate Analysis Report

Write the analysis report to {target-root}/analysis-report.md (or user-specified path).

Report format:

# Document Landscape Analysis

> Collection: {name}
> Root: {path}
> Analyzed: {date}
> Documents: {N} ({total words}k words)

## Executive Summary

{3-4 paragraphs: what this collection is about, its strengths as a knowledge base,
the most important issues found, and the top recommended actions}

## Document Map

### By Directory

| Directory | Docs | Purpose | Health |
|-----------|------|---------|--------|
| {dir}     | {n}  | {purpose} | {Good/Mixed/Poor} |

### By Type

| Type | Count | Key Documents |
|------|-------|---------------|
| vision | {n} | {most important ones} |
| architecture | {n} | ... |
| ... | ... | ... |

### Relationship Graph

~~~mermaid
graph LR
  ...
~~~

## Theme Analysis

### {Theme 1}: {name}

**Coverage**: {Good / Partial / Sparse}
**Key documents**: {list}
**Gaps**: {what's missing}

### {Theme 2}: {name}
...

## Findings

### Conflicts ({n} found)

{Ordered by severity}

#### CONFLICT-001: {title}
...

### Gaps ({n} found)

#### GAP-001: {title}
- **Area**: {theme/topic}
- **What's missing**: {description}
- **Why it matters**: {impact}
- **Recommendation**: {what to create or expand}

### Redundancies ({n} found)

#### REDUNDANCY-001: {title}
...

### Staleness ({n} documents flagged)

| Document | Status | Signals | Recommendation |
|----------|--------|---------|----------------|
| {path}   | Likely stale | {signals} | {update/archive/delete} |

## Reorganization Recommendations

{If the current structure has significant issues, propose an alternative organization.
Show current structure → proposed structure side by side.
Only propose reorganization if it would meaningfully improve navigability — don't reorganize for aesthetics.}

### Current Structure
~~~
{current directory tree}
~~~

### Proposed Structure
~~~
{proposed directory tree with annotations}
~~~

### Migration Steps
1. {step — which files to move/merge/archive}
2. ...

## Priority Actions

| # | Action | Addresses | Effort | Impact |
|---|--------|-----------|--------|--------|
| 1 | {action} | CONFLICT-001, GAP-003 | {S/M/L} | {High/Med/Low} |
| 2 | {action} | REDUNDANCY-001 | {S/M/L} | {High/Med/Low} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

Step 9: Present Results

Display a summary to the user:

Analysis complete: {collection-name}

  Documents analyzed: {N}
  Themes identified: {N}
  Conflicts: {n}
  Gaps: {n}
  Redundancies: {n}
  Stale documents: {n}

  Report: {path-to-analysis-report.md}

  Top 3 priority actions:
    1. {action} — {impact}
    2. {action} — {impact}
    3. {action} — {impact}

Use ask_user to ask what to do next:

• Deep dive: Explore a specific theme or conflict in detail
• Fix conflicts: Help resolve specific contradictions
• Fill gaps: Generate missing documents using spec-forge skills
• Reorganize: Execute the proposed reorganization (move/rename/merge files)
• Done: Just the report for now

Step 10: Follow-Up Actions (Optional)

Based on user choice:

Deep dive: Read the relevant documents in full, provide a detailed analysis of the specific area, and discuss with the user.

Fix conflicts: For each conflict, read both documents in full, determine the correct information (asking the user when uncertain), and propose specific edits. Only apply edits after user approval.

Fill gaps: For identified gaps, suggest which spec-forge skill to use:

• Missing architecture doc → /spec-forge:tech-design
• Missing requirements → /spec-forge:prd or /spec-forge:srs
• Missing test cases → /spec-forge:test-cases
• Missing strategy/research → manual writing or /spec-forge:idea for exploration

Reorganize: Execute file moves/renames step by step, confirming with user before each destructive action (deletes, merges). Update internal links after moves.

Notes

1. Cross-repo support: Can analyze documents across multiple repositories by providing multiple paths
2. No code requirement: Unlike /audit, /analyze works purely on documents — no codebase needed
3. Preserves originals: Never modifies source documents during analysis (only during explicit follow-up actions)
4. Incremental: If a previous analysis-report.md exists, note what changed since last analysis
5. Language agnostic: Works with any documentation regardless of the project's programming language
6. Scale aware: For very large collections (50+ docs), focus depth on the most important documents and provide breadth coverage for the rest