agentleFS
200iqlabs200iqlabs/shared-skills/.github/skills/openspec-new-change/SKILL.md

openspec-new-change

Skill4 starsChanged 12 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow. Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification with a structured step-by-step approach. Also use when the user says "openspec new change" or "opsx new".

66 other projects use a version of this, 62 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use openspec-onboard, draft-openspec-docs and 5 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • MicrosoftSkill

    openspec-onboard

    Guided onboarding for OpenSpec - walk through a complete workflow cycle with narration and real codebase work.

    Also in 52 projects that use this

  • goernSkill

    draft-openspec-docs

    Collaborative page-drafting mode for the OpenSpec docs. Builds a scratch plan inside the target page (purpose, structure, numbered draft steps), iterates on it with the user, then drafts one section per approved step and cleans up after itself. Use when a page needs a from-scratch rewrite or a new page is being shaped with the user in the loop.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • goernSkill

    release-openspec

    Use this skill when releasing OpenSpec: audit merged work and changeset coverage, decide whether a catch-up changeset PR is needed, prepare or resume the Changesets Version Packages PR, cut a beta or stable release, verify publishing, and polish GitHub release notes. Also use when asked whether an open release PR is complete, what the next release step is, or to continue a release paused for human approval.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Microsoft AzureSkill

    openspec-update-change

    Update an OpenSpec change by revising its existing planning artifacts and keeping them coherent with one another. Use when the user wants to revise a change's plan, fold new decisions into it, or reconcile its artifacts after an edit. Never edits code.

    Also in 11 projects that use this

  • VercelSkill

    vercel-react-best-practices

    React and Next.js performance optimization guidelines from Vercel Engineering. This skill should be used when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React/Next.js code to ensure optimal performance patterns. Triggers on tasks involving React components, Next.js pages, data fetching, bundle optimization, or performance improvements.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +2 more from goern

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 8 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 8

    Common

    Most of the 62 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Common:

    Start a new change using the experimental artifact-driven approach.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask the user (open-ended, no preset options):

    line 34
  3. Common:

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

    line 39
  4. Very specific:

    Use the default schema (omit --schema) unless the user explicitly requests a different workflow.

    line 43
  5. Very specific:

    Add --schema <name> only if the user requested a specific workflow.

    line 55
  6. Very specific:

    Use the returned planningHome, changeRoot, artifactPaths, and nextSteps instead of assuming repo-local paths.

    line 62
  7. Common:

    Check the status output to find the first artifact with status "ready".

    line 66
  8. Common:

    After completing the steps, summarize:

    line 76
  9. Common:

    Do NOT create any artifacts yet - just show the instructions

    line 84
  10. Common:

    Do NOT advance beyond showing the first artifact template

    line 85
  11. Common:

    If the name is invalid (not kebab-case), ask for a valid name

    line 86
  12. Common:

    If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead

    line 87

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 62 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Start a new change using the experimental artifact-driven approach.

Store selection: If the user names a store (a store is a standalone OpenSpec repo registered on this machine) or the work lives in one, run openspec store list --json to discover registered store ids, then pass --store <id> on the commands that read or write specs and changes (new change, status, instructions, list, show, validate, archive, doctor, context, schemas, view). Once selected, treat --store <id> as sticky for the rest of the workflow. Every unscoped example of those commands below is shorthand: before running it, append the flag. For example, run openspec status --change "<name>" --json --store "<id>", not the unscoped form shown below. Other commands do not take the flag. Hints printed by commands already carry the flag; keep it on follow-ups. Without a store, commands act on the nearest local openspec/ root.

Project check: These steps expect a project that already uses OpenSpec. Before the first step that writes anything (new change, archive, sync specs, or authoring an artifact file), confirm the project has a root: run openspec list --json (with --store <id> when a store is selected, since the store is then the root) and read root. A root object means the project is set up. "root": null means it is not - there is no openspec/ directory here, and a write such as openspec new change would create one as a side effect. The command also exits non-zero, which is that answer rather than a broken CLI, so read the JSON instead of retrying or working around it.

One "root": null is not about setup: when a status error message starts with Declared in or Invalid store declaration in and names this project's openspec/config.yaml (or config.yml), the project does use OpenSpec through a store it declares, which this machine cannot resolve (the store is not registered, or the store: line is malformed). Do not treat it as uninitialized and skip the branches below: stop before writing and show the user that error's message and fix.

Otherwise, with no root, what happens next depends on how this workflow was reached:

  • Auto-selected: you chose this workflow yourself, without the user naming OpenSpec, naming this skill, or running its slash command. Stop using OpenSpec and answer the request normally, as you would with no OpenSpec installed. Do not ask them to set anything up and do not mention OpenSpec setup.
  • Explicit OpenSpec request: the user named OpenSpec, named this skill, or ran its slash command. Stop before writing and ask how to proceed: set this project up (openspec init), target a store they already have (--store <id>), or continue without OpenSpec for this request. Wait for their answer.

In both branches, never create the root as a side effect: do not run openspec init until the user asks for it, do not hand-create openspec/ files, and do not let a command create it.

Input: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.

Steps

  1. If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build

    Ask the user (open-ended, no preset options):

    "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

    From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → add-user-auth).

    IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

  2. Determine the workflow schema

    Use the default schema (omit --schema) unless the user explicitly requests a different workflow.

    Use a different schema only if the user mentions:

    • A specific schema name → use --schema <name>
    • "show workflows" or "what workflows" → run openspec schemas --json and let them choose

    Otherwise: Omit --schema to use the default.

  3. Create the change directory
    openspec new change "<name>"
    Add --schema <name> only if the user requested a specific workflow. This creates a scaffolded change in the planning home resolved by the CLI.
  4. Show the artifact status
    openspec status --change "<name>" --json
    Use the returned planningHome, changeRoot, artifactPaths, and nextSteps instead of assuming repo-local paths.
  5. Get instructions for the first artifact The first artifact depends on the schema (e.g., proposal for spec-driven). Check the status output to find the first artifact with status "ready".
    openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"
    This outputs the template and context for creating the first artifact.
  6. STOP and wait for user direction

Output

After completing the steps, summarize:

  • Change name and location
  • Schema/workflow being used and its artifact sequence
  • Current status (0/N artifacts complete)
  • The template for the first artifact
  • Prompt: "Ready to create the first artifact? Just describe what this change is about and I'll draft it, or ask me to continue."

Guardrails

  • Do NOT create any artifacts yet - just show the instructions
  • Do NOT advance beyond showing the first artifact template
  • If the name is invalid (not kebab-case), ask for a valid name
  • If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
  • Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.