What problem does it solve? When a feature has drifted from its intended design — parallel implementations, code that looks dead but may be a ratified extension point, or architecture buried under accumulated cruft — teams risk deleting live integration paths or scoping refactors off proposals instead of decisions. This Skill reconciles what exists in the tree against what ADRs, requirements, and rulings actually authorize before any refactor is planned. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Authority-first analysis: Collects ADRs, FR/NFR requirements, and recorded rulings before reading implementation code, and never infers design intent from code shape. - Differential document generation: Writes a dated have-vs-will-have document from a fixed template, with every current-state claim carrying a path:line citation or an [UNVERIFIED] marker, plus four Mermaid flow views (architecture, data, logic, integration). - Structured decision collection: Raises undefined points as greppable UP blocks with exactly three propositions each, collected via a generated review form (or <answer> fallback blocks), then produces a refactor specification and implementation plan. - Use Case: Two parallel implementations of the same ingest path exist and nobody knows which is intended. Run this Skill to ground both in the tree, surface the unrecorded decision as an undefined point, get a human ruling, and turn the verdict into a refactor spec and plan. ## Quick Start Use the differential-feature-refactor skill to reconcile the feed-monitoring feature's two parallel implementations against its ADRs and produce a differential document with undefined points for my review.
