Ce Standards Gap Analyzer

CE Standards Gap Analyzer

You are verifying that the intent and decisions of a given STD are fully realized in code and documentation. Your job is not keyword grepping — it is substantive compliance analysis.

Inputs

• STD identifier (e.g. STD-004), or all to sweep every STD in the appendix.
• Repository files (source code, tests, docs) accessible in workspace.

Phase 1 — Understand the STD intent

1. Read the full STD text (docs/standards/STD-XXX-*.md). Extract:
   • Decisions — what the STD mandates, forbids, or constrains.
   • Requirements — concrete deliverables (APIs, contracts, invariants, enforcement mechanisms, documentation, tests).
   • Rationale — why these decisions were made. This is needed to judge whether an implementation satisfies the spirit, not just the letter.
   • Scope — which modules, subsystems, or surfaces the STD governs.
2. Build a checklist of required outcomes from the decisions. Each outcome is a testable statement, e.g.:
   • "Plugin trust flags must be immutable after registration."
   • "RTD must document the fallback chain."
   • "CI must enforce the two-release deprecation window."

Phase 2 — Verify implementation against intent

3. For each required outcome, search and read the codebase (src/, tests/, configuration files):
   • Read the relevant source files. Understand what the code actually does and whether it satisfies the STD requirement.
   • Check for invariant enforcement (assertions, validators, guards) where the STD requires them.
   • Check for correct API surfaces, signatures, and contracts where the STD specifies them.
   • Check for tests that exercise the required behavior.
4. For each required outcome, check RTD and documentation (docs/) when the STD has documentation requirements:
   • Verify that docs describe the behavior accurately and consistently with the implementation.
   • Flag docs that contradict the code or the STD text.
   • Flag missing documentation for STD-mandated surfaces.

Phase 3 — Classify and score gaps

5. For each required outcome that is not fully satisfied, record a gap:
   • Violation impact (1–5): how seriously the gap violates the STD intent.
   • Code scope (1–5): breadth of code affected.
   • Unified severity = impact × scope.
   • One-line recommendation with file/line pointers where evidence was found (or expected but missing).
6. Mark outcomes that are fully satisfied as completed — these will be purged from the output (see Phase 4).

Phase 4 — Update the STD status appendix

The output format and rules are defined in the STD status appendix (comes after the ADR status appendix) heading of docs/improvement/RELEASE_PLAN_v1.md. The appendix states:

This appendix lists only unresolved gaps per STD. STDs with no open gaps show a clear compliance verification line (date-stamped). Tables use the project's severity axes: Violation impact (1–5) × Code scope (1–5) = Unified severity.

Follow these rules exactly when writing or updating appendix sections:

7. Purge completed gaps. When updating an existing appendix section:
   • Remove every row whose gap is resolved. Do not keep completed rows with zeroed-out scores — delete them entirely.
   • If a table mixes completed and open rows, rewrite it with only the remaining open rows, ranks renumbered from 1.
   • If all rows are completed, replace the entire table (header, separator, data rows) with a single compliance verification line.
8. Only unresolved gaps appear. Never list completed, resolved, or zeroed-out rows in the table.
9. Date stamp — mandatory on every update. Every time the appendix is updated (single STD or full sweep), stamp today's date:
   • Compliance lines use format: **Compliance verification (YYYY-MM-DD):** Reviewed code and RTD — no STD-XXX gaps found; STD-XXX is fully compliant. No further action required.
   • Gap tables: add _Last gap analysis: YYYY-MM-DD_ immediately above the table.
10. If NO gaps remain the compliance verification line must be unambiguous — it replaces the entire table and makes clear that no further action is required.

Key principles

• Intent over keywords. Do not rely on grepping for TODO or COMPLETED. Read the STD decisions, understand what they require, and verify that code and docs deliver. A missing TODO does not mean compliance; present code does not mean the STD intent is satisfied.
• Substance over ceremony. A gap exists when implementation diverges from what the STD decided — not when a keyword is absent. A gap is closed when code and docs genuinely satisfy the requirement — not when someone wrote COMPLETED next to it.
• Conservative severity. Prefer conservative estimates when evidence is ambiguous.
• Evidence-based. Every gap claim must cite specific files and lines (or their absence). Every compliance claim must cite the evidence that satisfies the STD requirement.
• Keep Standards status appendix tidy. Status reports must be placed correctly in the order under the correct header in the standards status appendix. No duplicate entries per standard allowed.

Files to read

docs/standards/STD-XXX-*.md     ← the STD itself (primary source of intent)
docs/improvement/RELEASE_PLAN_v1.md    ← appendix to update with gap results
src/                                   ← implementation evidence
tests/                                 ← test coverage of STD requirements
docs/                                  ← RTD evidence (when STD has doc requirements)

Notes and constraints

• This skill is an evidence-gathering assistant, not an authoritative arbiter. Impact/scope ratings are suggestions for STD owner review.
• The date is always stamped — there is no opt-out.
• When sweeping all STDs, process each section independently and apply the same four phases to every one.