[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6KST4K3H5HP3EVRT8R55E5R":3,"skill-same:01M6KST4K3H5HP3EVRT8R55E5R":68},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":38,"linkOnly":39,"markdownContent":40,"markdownBody":41,"frontMatter":42,"refName":48,"commitSha":49,"skillDirectory":50,"forksCount":51,"repositoryHtmlUrl":52,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":53,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":54,"install":55,"resources":67},"01M6KST4K3H5HP3EVRT8R55E5R","speckit-analyze",null,"Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.","ghbvf\u002Fgocell","ghbvf","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F104540935?v=4","01M6KSS2CVFY1XK013726EE7ZP","01M6KSS2GJ30TNAVPNFATW578Q",4,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fspeckit-analyze\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37],"speckit","analyze","speckit analyze","artifact","true","kit","consistency","with","artifact consistency","commands","project","across","directory","structure","task","plan","analysis","specify","tasks","project structure","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: speckit-analyze\ndescription: Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis\n  across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.\ncompatibility: Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify\u002F directory\nmetadata:\n  author: github-spec-kit\n  source: templates\u002Fcommands\u002Fanalyze.md\ndisable-model-invocation: true\n---\n\n## User Input\n\n```text\n$ARGUMENTS\n```\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Goal\n\nIdentify 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 `\u002Fspeckit.tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.\n\n## Operating Constraints\n\n**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).\n\n**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`.specify\u002Fmemory\u002Fconstitution.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 `\u002Fspeckit.analyze`.\n\n## Execution Steps\n\n### 1. Initialize Analysis Context\n\nRun `.specify\u002Fscripts\u002Fbash\u002Fcheck-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths:\n\n- SPEC = FEATURE_DIR\u002Fspec.md\n- PLAN = FEATURE_DIR\u002Fplan.md\n- TASKS = FEATURE_DIR\u002Ftasks.md\n\nAbort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).\nFor single quotes in args like \"I'm Groot\", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: \"I'm Groot\").\n\n### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)\n\nLoad only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:\n\n**From spec.md:**\n\n- Overview\u002FContext\n- Functional Requirements\n- Success Criteria (measurable outcomes — e.g., performance, security, availability, user success, business impact)\n- User Stories\n- Edge Cases (if present)\n\n**From plan.md:**\n\n- Architecture\u002Fstack choices\n- Data Model references\n- Phases\n- Technical constraints\n\n**From tasks.md:**\n\n- Task IDs\n- Descriptions\n- Phase grouping\n- Parallel markers [P]\n- Referenced file paths\n\n**From constitution:**\n\n- Load `.specify\u002Fmemory\u002Fconstitution.md` for principle validation\n\n### 3. Build Semantic Models\n\nCreate internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):\n\n- **Requirements inventory**: For each Functional Requirement (FR-###) and Success Criterion (SC-###), record a stable key. Use the explicit FR-\u002FSC- identifier as the primary key when present, and optionally also derive an imperative-phrase slug for readability (e.g., \"User can upload file\" → `user-can-upload-file`). Include only Success Criteria items that require buildable work (e.g., load-testing infrastructure, security audit tooling), and exclude post-launch outcome metrics and business KPIs (e.g., \"Reduce support tickets by 50%\").\n- **User story\u002Faction inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria\n- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword \u002F explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases)\n- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST\u002FSHOULD normative statements\n\n### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)\n\nFocus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary.\n\n#### A. Duplication Detection\n\n- Identify near-duplicate requirements\n- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation\n\n#### B. Ambiguity Detection\n\n- Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria\n- Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, `\u003Cplaceholder>`, etc.)\n\n#### C. Underspecification\n\n- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome\n- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment\n- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec\u002Fplan\n\n#### D. Constitution Alignment\n\n- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle\n- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution\n\n#### E. Coverage Gaps\n\n- Requirements with zero associated tasks\n- Tasks with no mapped requirement\u002Fstory\n- Success Criteria requiring buildable work (performance, security, availability) not reflected in tasks\n\n#### F. Inconsistency\n\n- Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files)\n- Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa)\n- Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note)\n- Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue)\n\n### 5. Severity Assignment\n\nUse this heuristic to prioritize findings:\n\n- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality\n- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security\u002Fperformance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion\n- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case\n- **LOW**: Style\u002Fwording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order\n\n### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report\n\nOutput a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:\n\n## Specification Analysis Report\n\n| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |\n|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|\n| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |\n\n(Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.)\n\n**Coverage Summary Table:**\n\n| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |\n|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|\n\n**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)\n\n**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)\n\n**Metrics:**\n\n- Total Requirements\n- Total Tasks\n- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task)\n- Ambiguity Count\n- Duplication Count\n- Critical Issues Count\n\n### 7. Provide Next Actions\n\nAt end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:\n\n- If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `\u002Fspeckit.implement`\n- If only LOW\u002FMEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions\n- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., \"Run \u002Fspeckit.specify with refinement\", \"Run \u002Fspeckit.plan to adjust architecture\", \"Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'\"\n\n### 8. Offer Remediation\n\nAsk the user: \"Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?\" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)\n\n## Operating Principles\n\n### Context Efficiency\n\n- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: Focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation\n- **Progressive disclosure**: Load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis\n- **Token-efficient output**: Limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow\n- **Deterministic results**: Rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts\n\n### Analysis Guidelines\n\n- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis)\n- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent, report them accurately)\n- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)\n- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns)\n- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)\n\n## Context\n\n$ARGUMENTS\n","## User Input\n\n```text\n$ARGUMENTS\n```\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Goal\n\nIdentify 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 `\u002Fspeckit.tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.\n\n## Operating Constraints\n\n**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).\n\n**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`.specify\u002Fmemory\u002Fconstitution.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 `\u002Fspeckit.analyze`.\n\n## Execution Steps\n\n### 1. Initialize Analysis Context\n\nRun `.specify\u002Fscripts\u002Fbash\u002Fcheck-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths:\n\n- SPEC = FEATURE_DIR\u002Fspec.md\n- PLAN = FEATURE_DIR\u002Fplan.md\n- TASKS = FEATURE_DIR\u002Ftasks.md\n\nAbort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).\nFor single quotes in args like \"I'm Groot\", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: \"I'm Groot\").\n\n### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure)\n\nLoad only the minimal necessary context from each artifact:\n\n**From spec.md:**\n\n- Overview\u002FContext\n- Functional Requirements\n- Success Criteria (measurable outcomes — e.g., performance, security, availability, user success, business impact)\n- User Stories\n- Edge Cases (if present)\n\n**From plan.md:**\n\n- Architecture\u002Fstack choices\n- Data Model references\n- Phases\n- Technical constraints\n\n**From tasks.md:**\n\n- Task IDs\n- Descriptions\n- Phase grouping\n- Parallel markers [P]\n- Referenced file paths\n\n**From constitution:**\n\n- Load `.specify\u002Fmemory\u002Fconstitution.md` for principle validation\n\n### 3. Build Semantic Models\n\nCreate internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output):\n\n- **Requirements inventory**: For each Functional Requirement (FR-###) and Success Criterion (SC-###), record a stable key. Use the explicit FR-\u002FSC- identifier as the primary key when present, and optionally also derive an imperative-phrase slug for readability (e.g., \"User can upload file\" → `user-can-upload-file`). Include only Success Criteria items that require buildable work (e.g., load-testing infrastructure, security audit tooling), and exclude post-launch outcome metrics and business KPIs (e.g., \"Reduce support tickets by 50%\").\n- **User story\u002Faction inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria\n- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword \u002F explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases)\n- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST\u002FSHOULD normative statements\n\n### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis)\n\nFocus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary.\n\n#### A. Duplication Detection\n\n- Identify near-duplicate requirements\n- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation\n\n#### B. Ambiguity Detection\n\n- Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria\n- Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, `\u003Cplaceholder>`, etc.)\n\n#### C. Underspecification\n\n- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome\n- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment\n- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec\u002Fplan\n\n#### D. Constitution Alignment\n\n- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle\n- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution\n\n#### E. Coverage Gaps\n\n- Requirements with zero associated tasks\n- Tasks with no mapped requirement\u002Fstory\n- Success Criteria requiring buildable work (performance, security, availability) not reflected in tasks\n\n#### F. Inconsistency\n\n- Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files)\n- Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa)\n- Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note)\n- Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue)\n\n### 5. Severity Assignment\n\nUse this heuristic to prioritize findings:\n\n- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality\n- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security\u002Fperformance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion\n- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case\n- **LOW**: Style\u002Fwording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order\n\n### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report\n\nOutput a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure:\n\n## Specification Analysis Report\n\n| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |\n|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|\n| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |\n\n(Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.)\n\n**Coverage Summary Table:**\n\n| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |\n|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------|\n\n**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any)\n\n**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any)\n\n**Metrics:**\n\n- Total Requirements\n- Total Tasks\n- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task)\n- Ambiguity Count\n- Duplication Count\n- Critical Issues Count\n\n### 7. Provide Next Actions\n\nAt end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:\n\n- If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `\u002Fspeckit.implement`\n- If only LOW\u002FMEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions\n- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., \"Run \u002Fspeckit.specify with refinement\", \"Run \u002Fspeckit.plan to adjust architecture\", \"Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'\"\n\n### 8. Offer Remediation\n\nAsk the user: \"Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?\" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)\n\n## Operating Principles\n\n### Context Efficiency\n\n- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: Focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation\n- **Progressive disclosure**: Load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis\n- **Token-efficient output**: Limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow\n- **Deterministic results**: Rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts\n\n### Analysis Guidelines\n\n- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis)\n- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent, report them accurately)\n- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL)\n- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns)\n- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics)\n\n## Context\n\n$ARGUMENTS\n",{"name":5,"metadata":43,"description":7,"compatibility":46,"disable-model-invocation":47},{"author":44,"source":45},"github-spec-kit","templates\u002Fcommands\u002Fanalyze.md","Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify\u002F directory",true,"develop","043add59bbe840e4a90a4253feec21f074b590dd",".claude\u002Fskills\u002Fspeckit-analyze",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf","2026-06-20 14:38:06",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":56,"prompt":66,"zipAvailable":47},[57,60,63],{"tool":58,"command":59},"npx","npx skills add ghbvf\u002Fgocell --skill speckit-analyze",{"tool":61,"command":62},"bunx","bunx skills add ghbvf\u002Fgocell --skill speckit-analyze",{"tool":64,"command":65},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add ghbvf\u002Fgocell --skill speckit-analyze","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fspeckit-analyze\u002FSKILL.md",[],[69,90,105,125,135,142],{"skillNo":70,"name":71,"nameZh":6,"description":72,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":73,"categories":74,"keywords":75,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSVEVMZN9HK0ZRVY3MEJEJ","ship","全流程实施：探索→计划→worktree→TDD→实施→PR→review→\u002Ffix Cx1\u002FCx2→人工确认。L1(跳过探索,1 reviewer)\u002FL2(单agent探索,1 reviewer)\u002FL3(默认,三agent探索,按diff行数1\u002F2\u002F3\u002F6 reviewer自动)","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Fship\u002FSKILL.md",[],[71,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89],"Bash","l2","id","backlog","fix","edit","write","read","reviewer","grep","worktree","pr","tdd","review",{"skillNo":91,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":101,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSVCP8NB3095MY8M2BR235","pr-review","对指定 PR 跑自动分级六维度 review（默认）；或 --check 模式验证上一轮 findings 是否修复 + 抓回归。按 diff 净增删行数自动分配 2\u002F3\u002F6 reviewer agent 并行（\u003C 200 行不派发，主 agent 自审）；主 agent 做根因聚类 + Cx 分级 + 修复分流建议，不自动 fix。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Fpr-review\u002FSKILL.md",[96],{"categoryNo":97,"categoryName":98,"taxonomyType":99,"taxonomyTypeDesc":100},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[87,102,89,85,76,103,84,104,80,83],"pr review","check","diff",{"skillNo":106,"name":107,"nameZh":6,"description":108,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":109,"categories":110,"keywords":111,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSV8P4AYPNHCDR1T7B9YN5","issues","GitHub Issues + Project v2 #3 项目管理单源技能。Part A：epic 拆解 + wave 实施顺序评论（找子任务 → blocked-by DAG → wave 1-4 容量装箱排序：每 wave ≤4、pri 优先、wave 内切并行组\u002F串行链、OPEN 重排、已完成与超窗单列 → 只追加 epic 评论；不写 Project 字段、不改 epic body）。Part B：issue\u002FPR 原子操作（建\u002F改 backlog issue、area\u002Ftype\u002Fpri label、PR 双轴状态 label 流转、统一 PR 评论格式 + 冲突预检\u002FCI watch 跟进，ship\u002Ffix 共用）。非 epic issue 号 → 查代码判状态（只判不修，建议 \u002Fship 或 close）。当用户要整理 epic 排 wave、建\u002F改 backlog issue、贴 label、切 PR 状态、给 PR 留评论、核一个 issue 是否还成立时使用。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Fissues\u002FSKILL.md",[],[107,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,28,76,120,80,83,121,122,123,87,124,79],"项目管理","create-issue","labels","整理","EPIC","close","ci watch","type","github","open","ci","create","dag",{"skillNo":126,"name":127,"nameZh":6,"description":128,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":129,"categories":130,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSV7CX440Q82S9VXQJH02G","git-worktree","Git Worktree 项目约定（编号、基准分支、权限兼容、删除安全）。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Fgit-worktree\u002FSKILL.md",[],[132,86,133,134],"git","git worktree","安全",{"skillNo":136,"name":80,"nameZh":6,"description":137,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":138,"categories":139,"keywords":140,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSV5JB0AR3EJ9V2H4F2MN2","问题诊断与修复: 验证+根因+复杂度分级+修复方案+backlog登记。当用户说'这个问题存在吗''帮我分析这个bug''诊断一下这个模块''修复这个问题'时触发。支持单条问题和多方审查报告批量输入。","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.codex\u002Fskills\u002Ffix\u002FSKILL.md",[],[80,141,81,82,83,85,76],"文件",{"skillNo":143,"name":144,"nameZh":6,"description":145,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":146,"categories":147,"keywords":148,"publishedAt":38},"01M6KSV2S9ZK6BM2K1P2V3E4HK","speckit-taskstoissues","Convert existing tasks into actionable, dependency-ordered GitHub issues for the feature based on available design artifacts.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fghbvf\u002Fgocell\u002Fblob\u002Fdevelop\u002F.claude\u002Fskills\u002Fspeckit-taskstoissues\u002FSKILL.md",[],[149,18,31,150,22,23,25,151,152,153,28,154,155,35,107,156,36,37,120,157],"speckit taskstoissues","for","spec-kit","actionable","feature","Existing","convert","artifacts","design"]