rivet-analyze

Rivet analyze — complexity score, then expand the over-scoped

Borrowed from claude-task-master's complexity analysis, fitted to Rivet's spec model: a requirement that's too big to prove as one unit is a hidden risk. Score it, then break it down — but keep every piece bound and provable.

Score (1–10 per requirement)

Consider implementation effort, technical risk, dependency depth, and how many distinct behaviors the acceptance criteria assert. Report per requirement: score (1–10) · recommendedSubtasks · one-line reasoning. Buckets: 1–4 low (leave as-is) · 5–7 medium (breakdown helps) · 8–10 high (MUST split — too large to prove or implement in one pass).

Expand (score ≥ 8, or on request)

• Break the requirement into 2–6 sub-criteria, each one behavior, each independently bound by an @check. Use the existing ### Requirement/@check grammar — no new id scheme; sub-criteria are numbered -ACn under the requirement.
• Each new sub-criterion MUST still be a single falsifiable SHALL/scenario — expansion that produces vaguer pieces is worse than the original.
• After editing the spec, run rivet spec tasks to sync, then rivet spec draft-tests for the new unbound criteria (hand to rivet-test-author).

Rules (RFC-2119)

• You MUST NOT inflate scores to justify breakdown — a genuinely small requirement stays one unit (the over-ceremony trap that sinks rival tools).
• A split MUST preserve total coverage: the sub-criteria together assert everything the original did, plus the edge cases the split surfaced.
• Report the scores to the user before expanding anything; expansion changes the spec, which is theirs.