feat(agent): add speckit agents for task generation and issue creation

{

  "worktree_root": "D:/SVN/Projects/Standardization/tdoc-crawler.worktrees/copilot-worktree-2026-02-05T11-45-14",

  "last_export_commit": "6f74ac8299d4f1c43a7dcc82d39f69e492d5d247",

  "last_export_time": "2026-02-05T12:45:17.4420916+01:00",

  "jsonl_hash": "4805f8d70b5bb2aac48610ca5837e4449c04a11d9434b6d14a85dabab0e0db15"

}

 No newline at end of file

{

  "worktree_root": "D:/SVN/Projects/Standardization/tdoc-crawler",

  "last_export_commit": "6f74ac8299d4f1c43a7dcc82d39f69e492d5d247",

  "last_export_time": "2026-02-05T02:48:04.4458383+01:00",

  "jsonl_hash": "4805f8d70b5bb2aac48610ca5837e4449c04a11d9434b6d14a85dabab0e0db15"

}

 No newline at end of file

# tdoc-crawler Development Guidelines

Auto-generated from all feature plans. Last updated: 2026-02-05

## Active Technologies

- Python 3.14 + typer, rich, requests, beautifulsoup4, lxml, pydantic, pydantic-sqlite, hishel, zipinspect (001-specs-crawl-query)

## Project Structure

```text

src/

tests/

```

## Commands

cd src; pytest; ruff check .

## Code Style

Python 3.14: Follow standard conventions

## Recent Changes

- 001-specs-crawl-query: Added Python 3.14 + typer, rich, requests, beautifulsoup4, lxml, pydantic, pydantic-sqlite, hishel, zipinspect

<!-- MANUAL ADDITIONS START -->

<!-- MANUAL ADDITIONS END -->

---

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/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -RequireTasks -IncludeTasks` 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