Specify
Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Write the master spec — the WHAT. User stories, functional & non-functional requirements, acceptance criteria, and the dependency-ordered micro-spec plan. Strictly WHAT, never HOW.
29 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- joeldevz/skynex-pitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Buddhilive/buddhi-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarmtheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- jantichy/claudetheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- totalfrank/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- danielcherubini/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use discovery, spec-review 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.
robzolkosSkilldiscovery
Quick user-centric interview to capture requirements from a time-poor stakeholder.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillspec-review
Independent, multi-model review of a design or spec **before** any code is written, for the microsoft/winappcli repo. Activate when a contributor asks to "review this spec", "review my design", "review this design doc", "validate this approach", "should we build this", "spec review", "design review", or "feature review". Fans out parallel sub-agents — each doing its OWN research against the real codebase and ecosystem rather than trusting the spec — covering necessity & scope, approach & alternatives, feasibility vs reality, risks & unknowns, DX & user impact, and a different-model-family cross-check. Emits a decision-oriented recommendation (proceed / proceed-with-changes / reconsider) to stdout. This is the PRE-CODE companion to the pr-review skill (which reviews code already written); use spec-review at the design/spec stage, not on an implemented diff. Does NOT write code or edit the spec.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MetaSkillroadmap
Build, continue, inspect, or visualize a source-grounded mathematical roadmap and theorem DAG in an existing Autoform Markdown blueprint. Use for source research, repository-wide inventories of existing and planned mathematics, scope, coverage, milestones, and roadmap articles; do not create repository infrastructure or prove Lean declarations.
Also in 3 projects that use this
sahinSkillexecute
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillvalidate
Run the full CI validation workflow locally before submitting a PR. Use this as a final check to ensure all Azure DevOps CI pipeline steps will pass.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillverify
End-to-end app testing pipeline for browser-based web apps on cloud browsers via Azure Playwright Workspaces: verify the live app, author tests for working flows, heal failing tests, then re-run with video and produce one consolidated report. Three phases (app verification, test authoring, test healing) plus a scoped final sanity run; each phase emits a sub-report. Use when asked to "verify my app", "make sure my app works and has good test coverage", "do a full QA pass", "add tests where I'm missing coverage", "fix failing tests and add new ones", "smoke test before deploy", "QA my deployment", or any combined verify-and-test ask. Requires Azure CLI (`az login`) and a Playwright Workspace resource ID — bootstraps configs on first invocation. Browser-based web apps with Playwright only — not for unit/API tests, native mobile/desktop, load/perf, or full accessibility audits.
Also in 10 projects that use this
Other versions29 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 29
- zaxbysauce/opencode-swarm★ 519same name
- ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm★ 518same name
- genkovich/sdd★ 187same name
- team-attention/hoyeon★ 173same name
- ArvorCo/Relentless★ 98same name
- jantichy/claude★ 45same name
- mehrad-dm/mastermind★ 23same name
- agent-ix/quoin★ 20same name
- danielcherubini/skills★ 14same name
- stormlightlabs/thunderus★ 4same name
19 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- A1 — Design & Master-Spec ConsistencySkill
- A2 — Spec ReviewSkill
- A3 — PolishSkill
- A4 — North Star DirectionSkill
- A5 — Web AuditSkill
- AcceptSkill
- AmendSkill
- BrainstormSkill
- ClarifySkill
- ClosureSkill
- ConstituteSkill
- DesignSkill
- DiscoverSkill
- FeatureSkill
- Final — The F-PassSkill
- HelpSkill
- ImplementSkill
- InitSkill
- MicroSkill
- North StarSkill
- ResumeSkill
- StatusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 27 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 25
Write spec.md from spec-template.md with all 14 sections:
- Very specific: line 31
If the spec depends on other features, write dependencies.json (shape below).
- Distinctive: line 53
Brownfield: add a Scope Boundary section + per-micro-spec File Operations.
- Distinctive: line 54
Lowfield: add a Pipeline Table and Artifact Schema section + per-stage Quality Gates.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 27 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.
Files
Specify — The WHAT
Produce the master spec: user stories, functional requirements (FRs), non-functional requirements (NFRs), acceptance criteria (ACs), and the micro-spec plan that breaks the feature into dependency-ordered groups of small implementation units. Strictly WHAT — never HOW.
Gate: the feature's design phase must be accepted (else "Accept the design first").
Inputs
.genesis/project-state.md(mode)- The constitution
.genesis/features/<feature>/design.md(required).genesis/features/<feature>/brainstorm-log.md(optional).genesis/design/overview.mdand other relevant design docsapprovals/master.json(verify design accepted)
Process
- Resolve the feature name; handle an existing/partial spec (revise vs continue vs fresh).
- Write
spec.mdfromspec-template.mdwith all 14 sections:- Overview · 2. Design Document References · 3. User Stories · 4. Functional Requirements (
FR-001…, RFC-2119 MUST/SHOULD/MAY) · 5. Non-Functional Requirements (NFR-001…) · 6. Acceptance Criteria (AC-001…, EARS form "WHEN {trigger}, THE SYSTEM SHALL {behavior}", each linked to an FR) · 7. Agent Boundaries (Always / Ask First / Never) · 8. Changelog Preview · 9. Out of Scope · 10. Assumptions (A-001…) · 11. Open Questions · 12. Constitution Compliance Check · 13. Micro Spec Plan · 14. Changelog.
- Overview · 2. Design Document References · 3. User Stories · 4. Functional Requirements (
- Section 13 — the Micro Spec Plan: groups ordered by dependency. For each group list its micro specs (ID, title, description, dependencies, size S/M/L/XL); include totals (group count, spec count, critical path). Two safeguards:
- Shared Infrastructure column — any file touched by 2+ specs gets exactly one owner group responsible for auditing it.
- Cross-Cutting FRs table — FRs spanning 2+ subsystems (keywords across/between/coordination/handoff) are each assigned to one micro spec at the integration point, so they don't fall through audit cracks.
- Zero implementation detail — no file paths, function names, endpoints, or schemas. Deferred items go to Out of Scope with a note on which spec they belong in.
- If the spec depends on other features, write
dependencies.json(shape below); skip the file if none. - Self-validation pass (up to 3 iterations): catch implementation leaks, vague requirements, missing strength keywords, FRs without ACs, untestable ACs, incomplete user stories, mode mismatch; auto-correct and report.
- Constitution-compliance check; insert
<!-- NEEDS_CLARIFICATION: {question} -->markers for residual ambiguity; recommend/genesis-clarifyif any remain. Present; commit; updateproject-state.md.
Output
.genesis/features/<feature>/spec.md— the 14-section master spec..genesis/features/<feature>/dependencies.json(when cross-feature deps exist):{ "feature": "<feature-name>", "dependencies": [ { "target_feature": "<other-feature>", "source_ref": "FR-012", "type": "blocking|informational", "description": "Requires the auth module from <other-feature>", "status": "open" } ] }
Mode differences
- Greenfield: full technical spec; groups by technical dependency.
- Brownfield: add a Scope Boundary section + per-micro-spec File Operations; FRs carry scope constraints ("MUST modify X without breaking Y"); groups cluster by touched-file impact; Out of Scope lists inherited code that won't change.
- Lowfield: add a Pipeline Table and Artifact Schema section + per-stage Quality Gates; FRs are process capabilities; groups order by pipeline-stage dependency.
Next step
Run /genesis-clarify.
Natural language triggers
- "write the spec"
- "specify this feature"
- "master spec for X"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.

