parity-gap
SolidDiffs a program against a reference or spec and writes the gaps as tasks. Use when matching, catching up to, reaching parity with, or surpassing another tool. Writes the gap list into `docs/todo.md`.
Install
Quality Score: 80/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- uwuclxdy
- Repository
- uwuclxdy/agenticat
- Created
- 5 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- TypeScript
- License
- MIT
Bundled in these plugins
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
parity-archivist
Maintains Claude Code parity lab-notes—claude-parity-matrix.md (adopt/skip/later + evidence), permission-modes.md, structured-output.md—from HARNESS_VISION and runner code. Use when Alan asks for parity matrix, permission mode mapping, or structured output design vs runner today.
gap-analysis
Performs a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use research.
gap-analysis-e2e
Two-mode chained gap analysis. DETECT scans the current service end-to-end through three lenses — north-star alignment, correctness (bugs), and user-perspective (UX) — and enumerates concrete, severity-ranked gaps. Then BENCHMARK researches how reference/benchmark services actually solved each high-ranked gap and PROPOSES a closing approach. Use when the user says any of: "북극성 기준으로 부족한 점", "사용자 관점에서 부족한 점", "다른 벤치마크 서비스는 이 부분을 어떻게 해결했는지", "갭분석", "레퍼런스 서비스랑 비교해서 부족한 점 찾아줘" — or the English equivalents: "gap analysis", "what are we missing vs the ideal/north-star", "benchmark against reference services". Fires for both Korean and English phrasing. NOT for a whole-codebase multi-dimension audit (use ultracode-service-audit) or single-artifact prose review (use multi-persona-review) — this is the narrower gap-vs-benchmark loop.