agentleFS
HK-hubHK-hub/AgentSkills/spec-driven-development/SKILL.md

spec-driven-development

Skill6 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea.

103 other projects use a version of this, 53 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use constraint-driven-development and incremental-implementation.

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.
  • MrCipherSmithSkill

    constraint-driven-development

    Use when a project needs a persistent, measurable quality bar — starting a project without documented standards, 'set up constraints', or when coverage/perf/a11y thresholds get re-debated per-PR. Produces CONSTRAINTS.md with enforceable numbers, ratchets, and a guard against silent weakening. NOT for throwaway prototypes or a one-off CI setup.

    Also in 16 projects that use this

  • LLl0k0laDSkill

    incremental-implementation

    Use when implementing any feature or change that touches more than one file. Use when you're about to write a large amount of code at once, or when a task feels too big to land in one step.

    Also in 50 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 89 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    Distinctive

    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
  • could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
  1. Distinctive:

    Write a structured specification before writing any code.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Start with a high-level vision.

    line 36
  3. Distinctive:

    Surface assumptions immediately: Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:

    line 38
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements.

    line 49
  5. Distinctive:

    Always do: Run tests before commits, follow naming conventions, validate inputs

    line 78
  6. Distinctive:

    Never do: Commit secrets, edit vendor directories, remove failing tests without approval

    line 80
  7. Distinctive:

    Reframe instructions as success criteria: When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:

    line 117
  8. Distinctive:

    No task should require changing more than ~5 files

    line 155
  9. Distinctive:

    Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:

    line 200

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 89 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

Spec-Driven Development

Overview

Write a structured specification before writing any code. The spec is the shared source of truth between you and the human engineer — it defines what we're building, why, and how we'll know it's done. Code without a spec is guessing.

When to Use

  • Starting a new project or feature
  • Requirements are ambiguous or incomplete
  • The change touches multiple files or modules
  • You're about to make an architectural decision
  • The task would take more than 30 minutes to implement

When NOT to use: Single-line fixes, typo corrections, or changes where requirements are unambiguous and self-contained.

The Gated Workflow

Spec-driven development has four phases. Do not advance to the next phase until the current one is validated.

SPECIFY ──→ PLAN ──→ TASKS ──→ IMPLEMENT
   │          │        │          │
   ▼          ▼        ▼          ▼
 Human      Human    Human      Human
 reviews    reviews  reviews    reviews

Phase 1: Specify

Start with a high-level vision. Ask the human clarifying questions until requirements are concrete.

Surface assumptions immediately. Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:

ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
1. This is a web application (not native mobile)
2. Authentication uses session-based cookies (not JWT)
3. The database is PostgreSQL (based on existing Prisma schema)
4. We're targeting modern browsers only (no IE11)
→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.

Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The spec's entire purpose is to surface misunderstandings before code gets written — assumptions are the most dangerous form of misunderstanding.

Write a spec document covering these six core areas:

  1. Objective — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?
  2. Commands — Full executable commands with flags, not just tool names.
    Build: npm run build
    Test: npm test -- --coverage
    Lint: npm run lint --fix
    Dev: npm run dev
  3. Project Structure — Where source code lives, where tests go, where docs belong.
    src/           → Application source code
    src/components → React components
    src/lib        → Shared utilities
    tests/         → Unit and integration tests
    e2e/           → End-to-end tests
    docs/          → Documentation
  4. Code Style — One real code snippet showing your style beats three paragraphs describing it. Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.
  5. Testing Strategy — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.
  6. Boundaries — Three-tier system:
    • Always do: Run tests before commits, follow naming conventions, validate inputs
    • Ask first: Database schema changes, adding dependencies, changing CI config
    • Never do: Commit secrets, edit vendor directories, remove failing tests without approval

Spec template:

# Spec: [Project/Feature Name]

## Objective
[What we're building and why. User stories or acceptance criteria.]

## Tech Stack
[Framework, language, key dependencies with versions]

## Commands
[Build, test, lint, dev — full commands]

## Project Structure
[Directory layout with descriptions]

## Code Style
[Example snippet + key conventions]

## Testing Strategy
[Framework, test locations, coverage requirements, test levels]

## Boundaries
- Always: [...]
- Ask first: [...]
- Never: [...]

## Success Criteria
[How we'll know this is done — specific, testable conditions]

## Open Questions
[Anything unresolved that needs human input]

Reframe instructions as success criteria. When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:

REQUIREMENT: "Make the dashboard faster"

REFRAMED SUCCESS CRITERIA:
- Dashboard LCP < 2.5s on 4G connection
- Initial data load completes in < 500ms
- No layout shift during load (CLS < 0.1)
→ Are these the right targets?

This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve toward a clear goal rather than guessing what "faster" means.

Phase 2: Plan

With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:

  1. Identify the major components and their dependencies
  2. Determine the implementation order (what must be built first)
  3. Note risks and mitigation strategies
  4. Identify what can be built in parallel vs. what must be sequential
  5. Define verification checkpoints between phases

Follow planning-and-task-breakdown for the dependency-graph mapping and vertical-slicing mechanics behind these steps; it is the canonical source. The bullets above are a lightweight summary; if they ever diverge, planning-and-task-breakdown takes precedence.

Output convention: Save the plan to tasks/plan.md and the task list to tasks/todo.md, per the /plan command convention. Create tasks/ if it does not exist. Downstream commands (/build, etc.) expect these paths.

The plan should be reviewable: the human should be able to read it and say "yes, that's the right approach" or "no, change X."

Phase 3: Tasks

Break the plan into discrete, implementable tasks:

  • Each task should be completable in a single focused session
  • Each task has explicit acceptance criteria
  • Each task includes a verification step (test, build, manual check)
  • Tasks are ordered by dependency, not by perceived importance
  • No task should require changing more than ~5 files

Follow planning-and-task-breakdown for the full task-sizing and dependency-ordering mechanics; it is the canonical source. The template below is a lightweight inline form; if they ever diverge, planning-and-task-breakdown takes precedence.

Task template:

- [ ] Task: [Description]
  - Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
  - Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, manual check]
  - Files: [Which files will be touched]

Phase 4: Implement

Execute tasks one at a time following skills/incremental-implementation/SKILL.md (incremental-implementation) and skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md (test-driven-development). Use skills/context-engineering/SKILL.md (context-engineering) to load the right spec sections and source files at each step rather than flooding the agent with the entire spec.

Keeping the Spec Alive

The spec is a living document, not a one-time artifact:

  • Update when decisions change — If you discover the data model needs to change, update the spec first, then implement.
  • Update when scope changes — Features added or cut should be reflected in the spec.
  • Commit the spec — The spec belongs in version control alongside the code.
  • Reference the spec in PRs — Link back to the spec section that each PR implements.

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"This is simple, I don't need a spec"Simple tasks don't need long specs, but they still need acceptance criteria. A two-line spec is fine.
"I'll write the spec after I code it"That's documentation, not specification. The spec's value is in forcing clarity before code.
"The spec will slow us down"A 15-minute spec prevents hours of rework. Waterfall in 15 minutes beats debugging in 15 hours.
"Requirements will change anyway"That's why the spec is a living document. An outdated spec is still better than no spec.
"The user knows what they want"Even clear requests have implicit assumptions. The spec surfaces those assumptions.

Red Flags

  • Starting to write code without any written requirements
  • Asking "should I just start building?" before clarifying what "done" means
  • Implementing features not mentioned in any spec or task list
  • Making architectural decisions without documenting them
  • Skipping the spec because "it's obvious what to build"

Verification

Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:

  • The spec covers all six core areas
  • The human has reviewed and approved the spec
  • Success criteria are specific and testable
  • Boundaries (Always/Ask First/Never) are defined
  • The spec is saved to a file in the repository

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.