analyze-issue git:20261016.04e815bA

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/c64cb5afe7f061f3.

---
name: analyze-issue
description: >
  Turns one GitHub issue into an implementation-ready tech spec: existing patterns, scope
  boundaries, a plan, and MVP tests. Use before starting work on an issue. Trigger on: "analyze
  issue #X", "spec out #123", "break down this issue", "plan issue #N".
---

# Issue Analysis

## 1. Get the issue number

The user will provide an issue number. If they described an issue by name instead, find it:

```bash
gh issue list --search "[keywords]" --json number,title | head -5
```

## 2. Fetch full issue context

```bash
gh issue view [NUMBER] --json number,title,body,labels,comments,createdAt,milestone,assignees
```

Read every comment — they often contain updated requirements, implementation constraints, or scope decisions that aren't in the original body.

## 3. Discover existing patterns

Before planning anything, find what already exists in the codebase. Don't assume new code is needed.

```bash
# Find related components by keyword
grep -r "[relevant term]" src/ --include="*.ts" --include="*.tsx" -l | head -10

# Check for similar features
find src/ -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" | xargs grep -l "[related concept]" | head -5
```

Look for:
- Existing components that could be extended
- Utilities that could be reused
- Types or interfaces to build on
- Patterns established by similar features

## 4. Analyze requirements

From the issue body and comments, extract:
- The core problem being solved
- Explicit acceptance criteria (look for checklists or "should" statements)
- What the user asked for vs what they actually need (they may differ)
- Any constraints mentioned (performance, backwards compatibility, etc.)
- What's explicitly out of scope

If acceptance criteria are vague, infer concrete ones from the description.

## 5. Produce the technical specification

```
# Technical Spec: Issue #[NUMBER] — [title]

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: what problem this solves and why it matters]

Labels: [labels]
Milestone: [milestone or "none"]
Priority: [High/Medium/Low based on issue content]

## Scope

In scope:
- [specific item]
- [specific item]

Out of scope:
- [explicitly excluded item]
- [adjacent work that might seem related but isn't]

## Technical approach
[Concrete approach that leans on existing patterns. Reference specific files or components
found during discovery. Explain key decisions — why this approach over alternatives.]

## Existing code to leverage
- [file/component]: [how it applies]
- [utility]: [what it provides]
- [type/interface]: [what to extend]

## Implementation plan
1. [Step — specific enough to act on]
2. [Step]
3. [Step]
4. [Step, if needed]

## MVP test plan

Write 3-5 tests that map directly to acceptance criteria. No "renders without crashing."

1. [What you're testing] — validates [acceptance criterion]
2. [What you're testing] — validates [acceptance criterion]
3. [What you're testing] — validates [acceptance criterion]

Not testing (save for later or explicitly out of scope):
- [edge case not in acceptance criteria]
- [exhaustive input validation]

## Files to modify
- [path]: [changes]

## Files to create
- [path]: [purpose]

## Success criteria
- [ ] [criterion pulled directly from issue]
- [ ] [criterion]
- [ ] Tests cover acceptance criteria without rigging
- [ ] No duplicate functionality introduced

## Risks
- [Risk]: [Mitigation]

## Estimated effort
[Small / Medium / Large — with a one-sentence rationale]
```

## 6. Flag anything unclear

If the issue has ambiguous requirements, call them out explicitly rather than assuming. Ask the user to clarify before they start implementing — it's cheaper to resolve ambiguity now than mid-implementation.

## 7. Handing off to implementation

Once the spec is confirmed and ambiguity is resolved, suggest driving the build with `/goal` instead of manual turn-by-turn iteration — the success criteria above become the completion condition, e.g. `/goal "issue #N: all success-criteria checkboxes met, tests green, PR open"`. A separate evaluator decides when it's actually done.