本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

ln-641-pattern-analyzer

Analyzes single pattern implementation, calculates 4 scores (compliance, completeness, quality, implementation), identifies gaps. Invoked by ln-640 or standalone.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.

Pattern Analyzer

L3 Worker that analyzes a single architectural pattern against best practices and calculates 4 scores.

Purpose & Scope

  • Analyze ONE pattern per invocation (receives pattern name, locations, best practices from coordinator)
  • Find all implementations in codebase (Glob/Grep)
  • Validate implementation exists and works
  • Calculate 4 scores: compliance, completeness, quality, implementation
  • Identify gaps and issues with severity and effort estimates
  • Return structured analysis result to coordinator

Out of Scope (owned by ln-624-code-quality-auditor):

  • Cyclomatic complexity thresholds (>10, >20)
  • Method/class length thresholds (>50, >100, >500 lines)
  • Quality Score focuses on pattern-specific quality (SOLID within pattern, pattern-level smells), not generic code metrics

Input (from ln-640 coordinator)

- pattern: string          # Pattern name (e.g., "Job Processing")
- locations: string[]      # Known file paths/directories
- bestPractices: object    # Best practices from MCP Ref/Context7/WebSearch
- output_dir: string       # e.g., "docs/project/.audit/ln-640/{YYYY-MM-DD}"

Note: All patterns arrive pre-verified (passed ln-640 Phase 1d applicability gate with >= 2 structural components confirmed).

Workflow

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

Phase 1: Find Implementations

MANDATORY READ: Load ../ln-640-pattern-evolution-auditor/references/pattern_library.md — use "Pattern Detection (Grep)" table for detection keywords per pattern.

IF pattern.source == "adaptive":
  # Pattern discovered by coordinator Phase 1b — evidence already provided
  files = pattern.evidence.files
  SKIP detection keyword search (already done in Phase 1b)
ELSE:
  # Baseline pattern — use library detection keywords
  files = Glob(locations)
  additional = Grep("{pattern_keywords}", "**/*.{ts,js,py,rb,cs,java}")
  files = deduplicate(files + additional)

Phase 2: Read and Analyze Code

FOR EACH file IN files (limit: 10 key files):
  Read(file)
  Extract: components, patterns, error handling, logging, tests

Phase 3: Calculate 4 Scores

MANDATORY READ: Load ../ln-640-pattern-evolution-auditor/references/scoring_rules.md — follow Detection column for each criterion.

ScoreSource in scoring_rules.mdMax
Compliance"Compliance Score" section — industry standard, naming, conventions, anti-patterns100
Completeness"Completeness Score" section — required components table (per pattern), error handling, tests100
Quality"Quality Score" section — method length, complexity, code smells, SOLID100
Implementation"Implementation Score" section — compiles, production usage, integration, monitoring100

Scoring process for each criterion:

  1. Run the Detection Grep/Glob from scoring_rules.md
  2. If matches found → add points per criterion
  3. If anti-pattern/smell detected → subtract per deduction table
  4. Document evidence: file path + line for each score justification

Phase 4: Identify Issues and Gaps

FOR EACH bestPractice NOT implemented:
  issues.append({
    severity: "HIGH" | "MEDIUM" | "LOW",
    category: "compliance" | "completeness" | "quality" | "implementation",
    issue: description,
    suggestion: how to fix,
    effort: "S" | "M" | "L"
  })

# Layer 2 context check (MANDATORY):
# Deviation documented in code comment or ADR? → downgrade to LOW
# Pattern intentionally simplified for project scale? → skip


gaps = {
  missingComponents: required components not found in code,
  inconsistencies: conflicting or incomplete implementations
}

Phase 5: Calculate Score

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Diagnostic sub-scores (0-100 each) are calculated separately and reported in AUDIT-META for diagnostic purposes only:

  • compliance, completeness, quality, implementation

Phase 6: Write Report

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

# Build pattern name slug: "Job Processing" → "job-processing"
slug = pattern.name.lower().replace(" ", "-")

# Build markdown report in memory with:
# - AUDIT-META (extended: score [penalty-based] + diagnostic score_compliance/completeness/quality/implementation)
# - Checks table (compliance_check, completeness_check, quality_check, implementation_check)
# - Findings table (issues sorted by severity)
# - DATA-EXTENDED: {pattern, codeReferences, gaps, recommendations}

Write to {output_dir}/641-pattern-{slug}.md (atomic single Write call)

Phase 7: Return Summary

Report written: docs/project/.audit/ln-640/{YYYY-MM-DD}/641-pattern-job-processing.md
Score: 7.9/10 (C:72 K:85 Q:68 I:90) | Issues: 3 (H:1 M:2 L:0)

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • One pattern only: Analyze only the pattern passed by coordinator
  • Read before score: Never score without reading actual code
  • Detection-based scoring: Use Grep/Glob patterns from scoring_rules.md, not assumptions
  • Effort estimates: Always provide S/M/L for each issue
  • Code references: Always include file paths for findings

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • All implementations found via Glob/Grep (using pattern_library.md keywords or adaptive evidence)
  • Key files read and analyzed
  • 4 scores calculated using scoring_rules.md Detection patterns
  • Issues identified with severity, category, suggestion, effort
  • Gaps documented (missing components, inconsistencies)
  • Recommendations provided
  • Report written to {output_dir}/641-pattern-{slug}.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary returned to coordinator

Reference Files

  • Scoring rules: ../ln-640-pattern-evolution-auditor/references/scoring_rules.md
  • Pattern library: ../ln-640-pattern-evolution-auditor/references/pattern_library.md
  • MANDATORY READ: shared/references/research_tool_fallback.md

Version: 2.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-02-08

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月10日 更新

tensology のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する