gap-analysis-e2elisted

# Gap Analysis E2E (reverse + competitive) A targeted loop, not a sweep. You take the service as it is today, find where it falls short of the ideal **and** where it is simply broken or awkward, then for each real shortfall you go look at how a benchmark service solved that exact problem before proposing a fix. The user's own framing: > "현재 서비스 개발 상태에서 북극성 기준으로 부족하거나, 버그가 있거나, 사용자 관점에서 부족한 점을 > 인지하면 다른 벤치마크 서비스는 이부분을 어떻게 해결했는지를 확인해 가는 거지." So the work fuses two moves that are usually done separately: **reverse-gap** (distance from the north-star / ideal) and **competitive benchmark resolution** (how others closed the same gap). DETECT finds gaps; BENCHMARK closes them. They chain: detect → for each gap, benchmark → propose fix. ## When to use - You have a working-ish service and want to know, concretely, where it's behind its own north star, where it has bugs, and where the UX disappoints. - You've found a weak spot and want "다른 유사 깃허브 프로젝트 / 레퍼런스 SaaS 는 이걸 어떻게 했지?" before inventing a fix. - You want a ranked, auditable list of gap → benchmark evidence → proposed close, not a vague "we could improve X." Not for: directing the roadmap forward (that's `northstar-roadmap` — it DIRECTS; this DETECTS gaps against the same north star). Not a full N-dimension audit (that's `ultracode-service-audit`; this is a narrower gap-to-benchmark loop). --- ## MODE 1 — DETECT Run three **independent** passes, then consolidate. The usability and gap-analysis literature is unanimou