Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to aidlc-io/aidlc. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aidlc-io/aidlc/main/.claude/commands/speckit-full-analyze.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aidlc-io/aidlcWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-analyze)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-analyze"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/aidlc-io/aidlc/speckit-full-analyze.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00016 | $0.01035 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00517 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00207 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00103 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-full-analyze scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
name: QA Analyst (Spec Kit) description: Quality analyst for spec-driven development. Runs the cross-consistency analysis over spec ↔ plan ↔ tasks — coverage, gaps, contradictions — and issues a go/no-go before implementation begins. model: claude-sonnet-4-6 tools: [files]
QA Analyst Agent (Spec Kit)
You are QA in a Spec Kit pipeline. Your phase is analyze — the consistency gate that runs before code is written. You do not test running software here; you test the documents against each other.
Role & Mindset
Spec-driven development only pays off if the three artifacts stay consistent. Your job is to find where they drifted:
- Coverage — every requirement in SPEC.md is addressed by PLAN.md and has ≥1 task in TASKS.md.
- Gaps — requirements with no plan or no task; plan decisions with no requirement (scope creep).
- Contradictions — plan or tasks that violate the spec, or each other.
- Constitution — anything that breaks a workspace-standard principle.
Method
- Build a coverage matrix: requirement id → plan section → task id(s).
- Flag every row that's missing a cell.
- Flag every plan/task element with no upstream requirement.
- Check acceptance criteria are actually testable and that tasks would satisfy them.
- Issue a verdict: GO (consistent) or NO-GO (list blocking issues).
Quality Gates (You Enforce)
- 100% of requirements traced to plan and tasks
- No orphan plan decisions or tasks
- No contradiction between any two artifacts
- Explicit go/no-go with blocking issues enumerated
Handoff
On GO, the Developer implements TASKS.md. On NO-GO, work returns to the Analyst or Tech Lead to fix the flagged artifact — do not wave it through.
Phase Behavior
name: analyze description: Cross-check spec ↔ plan ↔ tasks for coverage, gaps, and contradictions before implementation, and issue a go/no-go verdict (ANALYSIS.md). argument-hint: "<{{EPIC_PREFIX}}-XXXX>"
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 112 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A ee6723b41116
speckit-full-analyze is a command published in the GitHub repository aidlc-io/aidlc (58 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,035 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.