C31-spec
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
spec, 写需求, PRD | 需求定义:任何新项目/功能/重大变更先写PRD,作为意图与实现的契约
In this repository56 other files it gives its agents.
- C31-1stSkill
- C31-adopt-projectSkill
- C31-brainstormSkill
- C31-coding-disciplineSkill
- C31-compound-refreshSkill
- C31-compoundSkill
- C31-context-engineeringSkill
- C31-curatorSkill
- c31-daily-intelSkill
- C31-debugSkill
- c31-devSkill
- C31-grillSkill
- C31-lfgSkill
- C31-planSkill
- C31-researchSkill
- C31-stormSkill
- C31-strategySkill
- C31-workflow-bug-reproductionSkill
- C31-workSkill
- rl-workflowSkill
- C31-cvideoSkill
- c31-loopSkill
- c31-sxsSkill
- teachSkill
- video-content-analysisSkill
- agent-reachSkill
- kimiimSkill
- skillhub-preferenceSkill
- c31-communitySkill
- c31-growSkill
- c31-gutcheckSkill
- c31-marketSkill
- c31-mvpSkill
- c31-priceSkill
- c31-processSkill
- c31-sellSkill
- c31-validateSkill
- c31-valuesSkill
- growth-hackerSkill
- c31-improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- C31-multi-reviewSkill
- C31-review-adversarialSkill
- C31-review-architectureSkill
- C31-review-securitySkill
- C31-reviewSkill
- c31-wizardSkill
- external-privacy-guardSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- gsd-map-codebaseSkill
- gsd-new-projectSkill
- gsd-progressSkill
- gsd-quickSkill
- gsd-shipSkill
- humanize-aiSkill
- time-awarenessSkill
- worker-safetySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 43
If user skips spec and goes straight to code:
- Distinctive: line 51
Ask 5 questions, one at a time, in order:
- Distinctive: line 104
If any check fails → reject and rewrite.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Multilingual Triggers
| Language | Trigger phrases |
| EN | spec, 写需求, PRD, 产品文档, 定义项目 |
| ZH | 写需求, 产品需求, PRD |
| JA | 仕様を書く, 要件定義, PRD作成 |
Output language: Respond automatically in the user's conversation language.
C31-spec — Spec-Driven Development Skill
Philosophy
Process not prose. Verification non-negotiable. Progressive disclosure.
Any new project, feature, or major change starts with a PRD. No exceptions. The PRD is the contract between intent and implementation. Writing it is cheaper than debugging what you should have decided upfront.
When to Activate
- User says: "I want to build...", "I want to develop...", "This project..."
- User jumps straight to implementation without defining scope
- Any task that will take >30 minutes or modify >3 files
- Any new skill, tool, or workflow
Workflow
1. Detect & Interrupt
If user skips spec and goes straight to code:
"Hold on. Write the PRD first, then write the code. That's the rule."
"Code without a PRD = unconstrained improvisation = rework."
2. Elicit Requirements (Progressive Disclosure)
Ask 5 questions, one at a time, in order:
- Goal: What problem does this solve? Who is the user? What is the success criterion?
- Command / Interface: How does the user invoke it? CLI command? API endpoint? Chat trigger word?
- Structure: What files / modules / tables are needed? What is the core data flow?
- Code style: Consistent with existing code conventions? What language / framework?
- Boundaries: Explicitly state what is not in scope. Resist scope temptations.
3. Write PRD
PRD template (required fields):
# PRD: [Project Name]
## Goal
- Problem statement (one sentence)
- Success criteria (2-3 verifiable items)
## Command / Interface
- How to trigger:
- Input parameters:
- Output format:
## Structure
- File list:
- Data flow:
- Dependencies:
## Code Style
- Language / Framework:
- Naming conventions:
- Integration points with the existing project:
## Testing
- How to verify "success criteria":
- At least 1 test case:
## Boundaries (explicitly excluded)
- Not doing X:
- Not doing Y:
- If the user requests these later, a new PRD must be opened4. Verification Gate
Once the PRD is written, check:
- Are success criteria verifiable? ("Better UX" is not; "Load time < 1s" is)
- Is the boundary list non-empty?
- Does this conflict with existing
gsd-new-project/C31-plan? - Do the file paths already exist? (Avoid overwrites)
If any check fails → reject and rewrite; do not proceed to the next step.
5. Handoff to C31-plan / C31-work
Once the PRD is confirmed, generate PLAN.md:
# PLAN: [Project Name]
Based on PRD: [PRD file path]
## Tasks
1. [ ] [Specific step] → verify: [how to verify]
2. [ ] [Specific step] → verify: [how to verify]
...
## Risk
- [Risk item]: [Mitigation strategy]Then invoke C31-plan or C31-work to enter the execution phase.
Anti-Rationalization Table
| Excuse | Counter-Argument |
| "Write code first, document later — it's faster" | When you write the docs later, you'll find design errors. Fixing them then costs 10x what fixing them now would cost. |
| "This project is small, doesn't need a PRD" | Small projects grow 3x faster than you expect. |
| "PRD is too formal, not agile" | Agile without constraints = Brownian motion. PRD is a track, not a cage. |
| "The user needs it urgently" | What the user wants has never been "fast" — it's "no rework". PRD saves total time. |
| "I've already thought it through" | The sign that you've thought it through is: you can write a PRD with no ambiguity. If you can't write it, you haven't thought it through. |
| "AI can help me refactor" | AI refactoring requires a clear structure. Clear structure requires a PRD. |
File Placement
- PRD:
memory/.planning/phases/XX-PRD.mdor project rootPRD.md - PLAN:
memory/.planning/phases/XX-PLAN.md - Cross-reference with
memory/.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md
Common Errors
| Error | Consequence | Fix |
| PRD says "improve user experience" | Unverifiable; leads to disputes at sign-off | Change to "page load < 1s, error rate < 0.1%" |
| Boundary says "not doing this for now" | "For now" = never defined, scope creep | Write "not doing X; if needed later, open a new PRD" |
| PRD skips the testing section | Critical paths fail only after launch | Write at least one end-to-end verification step |
| Directly copying an old project's PRD | Different context; design decisions are stale | Write independently for each project; reference allowed but not copy-paste |
Reference
- GSD
gsd-new-project— project initialization C31-plan— execution plan generationC31-work— task execution
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
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.

