---

name: specification-refiner description: > Systematic analysis and refinement of specifications, requirements, architecture designs, and project plans. Use when the user wants to identify gaps, weaknesses, inefficiencies, or complications in a proposed plan, specification, or design document. Triggers on gap analysis, specification review, requirements analysis, architecture critique, design validation, plan assessment, weakness identification, assumption auditing, or when users share specs/plans asking for feedback. Produces actionable findings with remediations and maintains analysis state across iterations.

Specification Refiner

Systematically analyze and refine specifications, requirements, and architectural designs through iterative gap analysis with persistent memory and explicit user confirmation at each phase.

Core Workflow

0. ASSESS     → Evaluate complexity, select mode, confirm with user
1. INGEST     → Load document, confirm understanding with user
2. ANALYZE    → Run SEAMS + Critical Path, present preliminary findings
3. PRESENT    → Surface detailed findings, manage questions with user
4. ITERATE    → Accept changes, re-analyze, present deltas
5. SYNTHESIZE → Present comprehensive summary for user approval
6. OUTPUT     → Generate refined specification(s) in Draft status
7. VALIDATE   → Review, validate traceability, advance status

Each phase ends with a full summary gate requiring user confirmation before proceeding.

---

Phase 0: ASSESS

On receiving a specification document, first assess complexity to determine the appropriate mode.

Complexity Assessment

Evaluate these factors:

• Document size: Page/word count
• Domains identified: Single vs. multi-domain
• Stakeholder count: How many perspectives involved
• Scope clarity: Clear, moderate, or ambiguous boundaries

Mode Selection

Present to user:

Based on initial assessment:
- Document size: [X pages / Y words]
- Domains identified: [list domains]
- Stakeholder count: [N stakeholders]
- Scope clarity: [Clear/Moderate/Ambiguous]

Recommended mode: [SIMPLE/COMPLEX]

Options:
1. Proceed with recommended mode
2. Override to SIMPLE mode
3. Override to COMPLEX mode
4. Explain the modes in more detail

Your choice:

SIMPLE Mode: Single-domain, <10 pages, clear scope

• SEAMS analysis only
• Single A-Spec output with numbered requirements (A-REQ-NNN)

COMPLEX Mode: Multi-domain, >10 pages, ambiguous scope

• Full dual-framework analysis (SEAMS + Critical Path)
• A-Spec/B-Spec hierarchy per domain (see references/spec-hierarchy.md)
• Requirements Traceability Matrix generation

Phase 0 Gate

Present gate summary (see references/gate-templates.md for full format). Wait for user confirmation before proceeding.

---

Phase 1: INGEST

Actions

1. Parse document structure (sections, dependencies, interfaces)
2. Create initial memory file: analysis-state.md using template from assets/analysis-state-template.md
3. Record mode selection in memory file
4. Identify document type and select appropriate analysis lenses
5. Note any questions that arise during parsing

Question Management

• Add questions to the Open Questions list with "Raised In: Phase 1: INGEST"
• Attempt to answer any Phase 0 questions from document content
• Update question statuses

Phase 1 Gate

Present full summary including: document info, sections identified, key entities, dependencies, and question status. See references/gate-templates.md for format. Wait for user confirmation—user may answer questions here.

---

Phase 2: ANALYZE

Run analysis frameworks based on mode.

SIMPLE Mode

Run SEAMS Analysis only (see references/seams-framework.md).

COMPLEX Mode

Run BOTH frameworks in parallel:

Framework A: SEAMS Analysis

Structure → Execution → Assumptions → Mismatches → Stakeholders

Lens	Questions to Answer
Structure	Completeness of I/O paths? Cohesion? Coupling risks? Boundary clarity?
Execution	Happy path works? Edge cases covered? Failure modes handled?
Assumptions	Technical assumptions? Organizational? Environmental?
Mismatches	Requirements ↔ Design aligned? Design ↔ Implementation consistent?
Stakeholders	Operator view? Security view? Integrator view? End-user view?

Framework B: Critical Path Analysis

See references/critical-path-analysis.md for detailed methods.

1. Dependency Mapping: Build N² matrix
2. Critical Path Identification: Find longest/riskiest chains
3. Single Points of Failure: Cascade risk components
4. Bottleneck Detection: Throughput limiters
5. Temporal Analysis: Sequencing issues

Question Management

• Add new questions discovered during analysis with "Raised In: Phase 2: ANALYZE"
• Note which findings are blocked by unanswered questions

Phase 2 Gate

Present preliminary findings summary with severity counts, top 3 issues, question status, and blocked findings. See references/gate-templates.md for format. Wait for user confirmation—user may answer blocking questions here.

---

Phase 3: PRESENT

Finding Format

For EACH identified issue, include: ID, title, category, severity, confidence, blocked-by status, description, evidence, impact, remediation options (with trade-offs), and related issues. See references/gate-templates.md for full template.

Presentation Order

Present findings grouped by:

1. Critical blockers (must fix before proceeding)
2. Significant gaps (high impact, clear remediation)
3. Optimization opportunities (efficiency improvements)
4. Considerations (context-dependent, need user input)

Question Management

• Present all unanswered questions explicitly
• Ask user to answer questions or confirm assumptions
• Update question tracking with answers received

Phase 3 Gate

Present findings summary with severity counts, question status, and assumptions made. Offer options: (1) Iterate, (2) Skip to Synthesize, (3) Answer questions, (4) Review details. See references/gate-templates.md for format.

---

Phase 4: ITERATE

When user provides new information, constraints, or requests changes:

Actions

1. Validate new input against existing analysis
2. Identify affected areas in the specification
3. Re-run analysis on affected sections only (delta analysis)
4. Assess cascading effects on previously-identified issues
5. Update memory file with new state

Question Management

• Add new questions with "Raised In: Phase 4: ITERATE"
• Check if new input answers existing questions
• Update all question statuses

Phase 4 Gate

Present delta summary: changes incorporated, new/modified/resolved findings, key changes, question status. Offer options: (1) Continue iterating, (2) Synthesize, (3) Review findings. See references/gate-templates.md for format.

---

Phase 5: SYNTHESIZE

Before generating any output, present a comprehensive summary for user approval.

Summary Contents

Present comprehensive summary covering:

• Document Overview: Title, mode, iteration count
• Findings Resolution: By severity with resolved/unresolved breakdown, key resolutions, unresolved critical/high items
• Questions Status: Answered, unanswered (with impact), deferred (with reason)
• Assumptions: Confirmed vs. unverified
• Proposed Output Structure: Based on mode (single doc for SIMPLE, separate files for COMPLEX)

See references/gate-templates.md for full format.

Phase 5 Gate

Offer options: (1) Approve and output, (2) Return to iterate, (3) Modify structure, (4) Answer questions. Wait for explicit approval before generating output.

---

Phase 6: OUTPUT

Generate refined specification(s) based on mode, all in Draft status.

SIMPLE Mode Output

Generate single A-Spec document (refined-specification.md) with:

• Numbered requirements (A-REQ-001, A-REQ-002, etc.)
• All resolved findings incorporated
• Selected remediations applied
• Documented assumptions
• Remaining open questions in dedicated section

COMPLEX Mode Output

Generate specification hierarchy per domain:

A-Spec files (one per domain):

• Naming: [domain]-a-spec.md
• Requirements: A-REQ-[DOMAIN]-NNN
• High-level requirements defining WHAT

B-Spec files (one or more per domain):

• Naming: [domain]-[subsystem]-b-spec.md
• Requirements: B-REQ-[DOMAIN]-NNN
• Each requirement MUST include Traces to: A-REQ-XXX-NNN
• Detailed requirements defining HOW

Supporting files:

• traceability-matrix.md - Full RTM (see assets/traceability-matrix-template.md)
• cross-cutting-concerns.md (if applicable)
• open-items.md

See references/spec-hierarchy.md for detailed format specifications.

RTM Generation (COMPLEX mode)

1. Extract all A-REQ-* from A-Spec files
2. Extract all B-REQ-* from B-Spec files with their traces
3. Build coverage matrix
4. Calculate coverage percentage
5. Identify gaps (A-Reqs with no B-Req coverage)
6. Generate traceability-matrix.md
7. Update analysis-state.md with RTM summary

Final Actions

1. Set all specification statuses to Draft
2. Update analysis-state.md with completion status and RTM summary
3. Present output files to user
4. Summarize what was generated
5. Prompt transition to Phase 7

Phase 6 Completion

Present: mode, files created with requirement counts, RTM summary (COMPLEX mode), findings addressed, assumptions documented. Prompt user to proceed to Phase 7. See references/gate-templates.md for format.

---

Phase 7: VALIDATE

Final review and validation phase ensuring specifications are comprehensive, traceable, and approved. Mandatory for both SIMPLE and COMPLEX modes.

Status Workflow

Specifications progress through statuses:

Draft → Reviewed → Approved → Baselined

• Draft: Initial output from Phase 6 (automatic)
• Reviewed: Technical review complete, no critical gaps
• Approved: Stakeholder sign-off received
• Baselined: Locked for change control

Validation Actions

1. Completeness check: All required sections present, cross-references valid
2. RTM validation (COMPLEX): Coverage percentage, gap identification
3. Traceability check (COMPLEX): All B-Reqs trace to A-Reqs
4. Consistency check: Terminology, formatting, priority scales aligned
5. Present validation findings with severity

Status Advancement

• Require explicit user approval to advance status
• Document status change with timestamp and approver
• Update analysis-state.md with new status and history

Advancement Criteria

Transition	Requirements
Draft → Reviewed	No critical RTM gaps, completeness checks pass
Reviewed → Approved	All high-priority issues resolved, stakeholder review
Approved → Baselined	Formal approval documented, change control established

Phase 7 Gate

Present validation summary with:

• Current status and proposed advancement
• RTM coverage metrics (COMPLEX mode)
• Completeness and consistency checklist
• Validation findings
• Options: advance status, return to fix issues, review details

See references/gate-templates.md for full template.

---

Question Tracking System

Question Categories

• Technical: Architecture, implementation, performance
• Process: Workflow, governance, approval
• Scope: Boundaries, requirements, features
• Stakeholder: Roles, responsibilities, ownership
• Timeline: Sequencing, dependencies, deadlines

Question Lifecycle

1. Raised: Question identified, logged with phase
2. Answered: Response received from user or inferred from analysis
3. Deferred: Explicitly set aside with reason and revisit trigger

Question Table Format

Track questions in analysis-state.md using tables for Unanswered (ID, Question, Category, Raised In, Blocks), Answered (ID, Question, Answer, Answered By, Answered In), and Deferred (ID, Question, Reason, Deferred In, Revisit When).

---

Memory File Management

Required Memory File: analysis-state.md

Use the template from assets/analysis-state-template.md. Key sections:

• Document metadata (title, version, hash)
• Mode selection (SIMPLE/COMPLEX)
• Analysis iterations table
• Active and resolved findings
• Question tracking tables (per-phase)
• Assumption register
• User-provided constraints

Update Protocol

After EACH phase:

1. Read current analysis-state.md
2. Update phase completion status
3. Update finding statuses
4. Update question tables
5. Record new assumptions
6. Log user decisions
7. Write updated file

---

Analysis Depth Calibration

Match depth to document maturity:

Document Stage	Analysis Focus
Concept/Idea	Feasibility, scope clarity, key assumptions
Draft Spec	Completeness, internal consistency, missing sections
Detailed Design	Interface contracts, error handling, edge cases
Implementation Plan	Dependencies, sequencing, resource conflicts
Review/Audit	Full SEAMS sweep, stakeholder perspectives

---

Quick Assessment Mode

For rapid feedback when full analysis is not needed:

1. Boundaries: What's in/out of scope?
2. One Thread: Trace critical path from input to output
3. Three Assumptions: The riskiest unstated beliefs
4. Silent Failure: What breaks without notice?
5. Naive Question: What would a newcomer ask that has no answer?

Note: Quick Assessment skips the full phase gate workflow but still creates analysis-state.md.

---

Output Formatting

Severity Indicators

• 🔴 Critical: Blocks progress, must address
• 🟠 High: Significant risk, should address soon
• 🟡 Medium: Notable issue, plan to address
• 🟢 Low: Minor concern, address opportunistically

Confidence Qualifiers

• High confidence: Clear evidence, well-understood domain
• Medium confidence: Reasonable inference, some ambiguity
• Low confidence: Pattern recognition, needs validation

---

Handling Incomplete Information

When specifications are incomplete:

1. Note the gap explicitly
2. State what would be needed to complete analysis
3. Offer reasonable assumptions (clearly marked)
4. Add question to tracking system
5. Ask user to confirm or provide missing details at next gate
6. Document in assumption register

---

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

• Vague criticism without specific evidence
• Recommendations without trade-off analysis
• Analysis paralysis on minor issues
• Ignoring stated constraints to suggest "ideal" solutions
• Failing to update memory after iterations
• Treating all findings as equal severity
• Proceeding past a gate without user confirmation
• Losing track of open questions
• Generating output without synthesis approval
• Generating B-Specs without traces to A-Specs
• Skipping RTM generation for COMPLEX mode
• Advancing status without validation
• Baselining specs with unresolved critical gaps