spectra-propose
Skill44 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create a change proposal with all required artifacts
6 other projects use a version of this, 5 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Will-SW74/passdown-osedited, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- DanSnow/hoarder-pipettetheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- leoho0722/naver-blog-image-downloaderedited, first seen Aug 31, 2026
- PsychQuant/claude-hot-limitedited, first seen Jul 1, 2026
- harrychuang/cursor-skillsedited, first seen Jun 17, 2026
- BananaBay69/claude-code-watchdogedited, first seen Apr 29, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use spectra-commit, spectra-analyze and 2 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.
BananaBay69Skillspectra-commit
Commit files related to a specific Spectra change
Also in 6 projects that use this
harrychuangSkillspectra-analyze
Analyze artifact consistency for a change
Also in 5 projects that use this
harrychuangSkillspectra-drift
Detect drift between a Spectra change and the current codebase state
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +1 more from harrychuang
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 5
- harrychuang/cursor-skills★ 1971% same
- BananaBay69/claude-code-watchdog★ 282% same
- leoho0722/naver-blog-image-downloader★ 271% same
- PsychQuant/claude-hot-limit★ 071% same
- Will-SW74/passdown-os★ 070% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- DanSnow/hoarder-pipette★ 98same name
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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- plugin/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- spectra-applySkill
- spectra-archiveSkill
- spectra-askSkill
- spectra-auditSkill
- spectra-debugSkill
- spectra-discussSkill
- spectra-ingestSkill
- spectra-applySkill
- spectra-archiveSkill
- spectra-askSkill
- spectra-auditSkill
- spectra-debugSkill
- spectra-discussSkill
- spectra-ingestSkill
- spectra-proposeSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
42 rules. 28 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.
28
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
12
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 12
Create a complete Spectra change proposal — from requirement to validated artifacts — in a single workflow.
- Common: line 20
If no argument is provided, the workflow will extract requirements from conversation context or ask.
- Very specific: line 31
Check if the conversation context mentions a plan file path (plan mode system messages include the path like <name>.md)
- Common: line 32
If found, check if the file exists at ``
- Common: line 33
If a plan file is found, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask:
- Common: line 36
If conversation context has no relevant discussion, mention this when presenting the choice
- Common: line 37
If the user picks the plan file → read it and extract:
- Common: line 42
If the user picks conversation context → fall through to (c)
- Common: line 45
If context is insufficient, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask what they want to build
- Common: line 49
IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
- Common: line 65
Before creating the change, check if any existing specs overlap:
- Very specific: line 66
Use the Glob tool to list all files matching openspec/specs/*/spec.md
- Common: line 70
If related specs are found, display them as an informational summary
- Common: line 73
If related specs are found, display them but do NOT stop or ask for confirmation — continue to the next step
- Common: line 74
If no related specs are found, silently proceed without mentioning the scan
- Common: line 82
If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing the existing change instead of creating a new one.
- Distinctive: line 92
Write the proposal file using the template from instructions, with the following format based on change type:
- Common: line 210
Read any completed dependency files for context
- Very specific: line 211
Create the artifact file using template as the structure
- Very specific: line 216
After creating each artifact, re-run spectra status --change "<name>" --json
- Very specific: line 217
Check if every artifact ID in applyRequires has status: "done"
- Very specific: line 218
Stop when all applyRequires artifacts are done
- Common: line 221
Use AskUserQuestion tool to clarify
- Common: line 226
After creating all artifacts, scan them manually.
- Common: line 241
Do tasks cover all design decisions, and nothing outside proposal scope?
- Common: line 272
If no Critical/Warning findings → show "Artifacts look consistent ✓" and proceed
- Very specific: line 273
If Critical/Warning findings exist: a.
- Common: line 278
After 2 attempts, if findings remain:
- Common: line 288
If validation fails, fix errors and re-validate.
- Distinctive: line 297
Use AskUserQuestion tool to ask what to do next.
- Very specific: line 301
If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, execute spectra park "<name>" and inform the user to run $spectra-apply <change-name> when ready.
- Very specific: line 307
Follow the instruction field from spectra instructions for each artifact type
- Common: line 308
Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
- Very specific: line 309
Use template as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
- Very specific: line 311
Do NOT copy <context>, <rules>, <project_context> blocks into the artifact
- Very specific: line 317
Create all artifacts needed for implementation.
- Common: line 318
Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
- Common: line 319
If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
- Common: line 320
If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
- Common: line 321
Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
- Common: line 322
NEVER: write application code or implement features during this workflow
- Common: line 326
If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, ask the same questions as plain text and wait for the user's response
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
Create a complete Spectra change proposal — from requirement to validated artifacts — in a single workflow.
Input: The argument after $spectra-propose is the requirement description. Examples:
$spectra-propose add dark mode$spectra-propose fix the login page crash$spectra-propose improve search performance
If no argument is provided, the workflow will extract requirements from conversation context or ask.
Prerequisites: This skill requires the spectra CLI. If any spectra command fails with "command not found" or similar, report the error and STOP.
Steps
Determine the requirement source
a. Argument provided (e.g., "add dark mode") → use it as the requirement description, skip to deriving the change name below.
b. Plan file available:
- Check if the conversation context mentions a plan file path (plan mode system messages include the path like
<name>.md) - If found, check if the file exists at ``
- If a plan file is found, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask:
- Option 1: Use the plan file
- Option 2: Use conversation context
- If conversation context has no relevant discussion, mention this when presenting the choice
- If the user picks the plan file → read it and extract:
plan_title(H1 heading) → use as requirement descriptionplan_context(Context section) → use as proposal Why/Motivation contentplan_stages(numbered implementation stages) → use for artifact creationplan_files(all file paths mentioned) → use for Impact section
- If the user picks conversation context → fall through to (c)
c. Conversation context → attempt to extract requirements from conversation history
- If context is insufficient, use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask what they want to build
From the resolved description, derive a kebab-case change name (e.g., "add dark mode" →
add-dark-mode).IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
- Check if the conversation context mentions a plan file path (plan mode system messages include the path like
Classify the change type
Based on the requirement, classify the change into one of three types:
Type When to use Feature New functionality, new capabilities Bug Fix Fixing existing behavior, resolving errors Refactor Architecture improvements, performance optimization, UI adjustments This determines the proposal template format in step 5.
Scan existing specs for relevance
Before creating the change, check if any existing specs overlap:
- Use the Glob tool to list all files matching
openspec/specs/*/spec.md - Extract directory names as the spec identifier list
- Compare against the user's description to identify related specs (max 5 candidates)
- For each candidate (max 3), read the first 10 lines to retrieve the Purpose section
- If related specs are found, display them as an informational summary
IMPORTANT:
- If related specs are found, display them but do NOT stop or ask for confirmation — continue to the next step
- If no related specs are found, silently proceed without mentioning the scan
- Use the Glob tool to list all files matching
Create the change directory
spectra new change "<name>" --agent codexIf a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing the existing change instead of creating a new one.
Write the proposal
Get instructions:
spectra instructions proposal --change "<name>" --jsonWrite the proposal file using the template from instructions, with the following format based on change type:
Feature
## Why <!-- Why this functionality is needed --> ## What Changes <!-- What will be different --> ## Non-Goals (optional) <!-- Scope exclusions and rejected approaches. Required when design.md is skipped. --> ## Capabilities ### New Capabilities - `<capability-name>`: <brief description> ### Modified Capabilities (none) ## Impact - Affected specs: <new or modified capabilities> - Affected code: <list of affected files>Bug Fix
## Problem <!-- Current broken behavior --> ## Root Cause <!-- Why it happens --> ## Proposed Solution <!-- How to fix --> ## Non-Goals (optional) <!-- Scope exclusions and rejected approaches. Required when design.md is skipped. --> ## Success Criteria <!-- Expected behavior after fix, verifiable conditions --> ## Impact - Affected code: <list of affected files>Refactor / Enhancement
## Summary <!-- One sentence description --> ## Motivation <!-- Why this is needed --> ## Proposed Solution <!-- How to do it --> ## Non-Goals (optional) <!-- Scope exclusions and rejected approaches. Required when design.md is skipped. --> ## Alternatives Considered (optional) <!-- Other approaches considered and why not --> ## Impact - Affected specs: <affected capabilities> - Affected code: <list of affected files>Get the artifact build order
spectra status --change "<name>" --jsonParse the JSON to get:
applyRequires: array of artifact IDs needed before implementationartifacts: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
Create remaining artifacts in sequence
Loop through artifacts in dependency order (skip proposal since it's already done):
a. For each artifact that is
ready(dependencies satisfied):- Check if the artifact is optional: If the artifact is NOT in the dependency chain of any
applyRequiresartifact (i.e., removing it would not block reaching apply), it is optional. Get its instructions and read theinstructionfield. If the instruction contains conditional criteria (e.g., "create only if any apply"), evaluate whether any criteria apply to this change based on the proposal content. If none apply, skip the artifact and show: "⊘ Skipped<artifact-id>(not needed for this change)". Then continue to the next artifact. - Get instructions:
spectra instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json - The instructions JSON includes:
context: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)rules: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)template: The structure to use for your output fileinstruction: Schema-specific guidanceoutputPath: Where to write the artifactdependencies: Completed artifacts to read for contextlocale: The language to write the artifact in (e.g., "Japanese (日本語)"). If present, you MUST write the artifact content in this language. Exception: spec files (specs/*/.md) MUST always be written in English regardless of locale, because they use normative language (SHALL/MUST).
- Read any completed dependency files for context
- Create the artifact file using
templateas the structure - Apply
contextandrulesas constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file - Show brief progress: "✓ Created
<artifact-id>"
b. Continue until all
applyRequiresartifacts are complete- After creating each artifact, re-run
spectra status --change "<name>" --json - Check if every artifact ID in
applyRequireshasstatus: "done" - Stop when all
applyRequiresartifacts are done
c. If an artifact requires user input (unclear context):
- Use AskUserQuestion tool to clarify
- Then continue with creation
- Check if the artifact is optional: If the artifact is NOT in the dependency chain of any
Inline Self-Review (before CLI analysis)
After creating all artifacts, scan them manually. Fix issues inline, then proceed to the CLI analyzer.
Check 1: No Placeholders
These patterns are artifact failures — fix each one before proceeding:
- "TBD", "TODO", "FIXME", "implement later", "details to follow"
- Vague instructions: "Add appropriate error handling", "Handle edge cases", "Write tests for the above"
- Delegation by reference: "Similar to Task N" without repeating specifics
- Steps describing WHAT without HOW: "Implement the authentication flow" (what flow? what steps?)
- Empty template sections left unfilled
- Weasel quantities: "some", "various", "several" when a specific number or list is needed
Check 2: Internal Consistency
- Does every capability in the proposal have a corresponding spec?
- Does the design reference only capabilities from the proposal?
- Do tasks cover all design decisions, and nothing outside proposal scope?
- Are file paths consistent across proposal Impact, design, and tasks?
Check 3: Scope Check
- More than 15 pending tasks → consider decomposing into multiple changes
- Any single task would take more than 1 hour → split it
- Touches more than 3 unrelated subsystems → consider splitting
Check 4: Ambiguity Check
- Are success/failure conditions testable and specific?
- Are boundary conditions defined (empty input, max limits, error cases)?
- Could "the system" refer to multiple components? Be explicit.
Rationalization Table
| What You're Thinking | What You Should Do |
| "The requirements are clear enough, no need for discuss" | Fine if true — but check you're not skipping because you're lazy |
| "This artifact isn't needed for this change" | Check applyRequires — if it's in the dependency chain, create it |
| "The spec doesn't need scenarios, the requirement is obvious" | Obvious to you now. Write scenarios for the implementer who doesn't have your context |
| "I'll keep the design brief, code will be self-explanatory" | Design exists so implementers don't reverse-engineer intent. Be specific |
| "This is a small change, skip the scope check" | Small changes touching 5 subsystems aren't small. Check |
| "The placeholder is fine for now, I'll fill it in later" | There is no "later" — implementation is next. Fill it in now |
- Analyze-Fix Loop (max 2 iterations)
- Run
spectra analyze <change-name> --json - Filter findings to Critical and Warning only (ignore Suggestion)
- If no Critical/Warning findings → show "Artifacts look consistent ✓" and proceed
- If Critical/Warning findings exist:
a. Show: "Found N issue(s), fixing... (attempt M/2)"
b. Fix each finding in the affected artifact
c. Re-run
spectra analyze <change-name> --jsond. Repeat up to 2 total iterations - After 2 attempts, if findings remain:
- Show remaining findings as a summary
- Proceed normally (do NOT block)
- Run
Validation
spectra validate "<name>"If validation fails, fix errors and re-validate.
Show final status and end workflow
Show summary:
- Change name and location
- List of artifacts created
- Validation result
Use AskUserQuestion tool to ask what to do next. This ensures the workflow stops even when auto-accept is enabled. Provide exactly these options:
- First option (will be auto-selected): "Park" — Execute
spectra park "<name>"to park the change, then inform the user they can run$spectra-apply <change-name>when ready (which will auto-unpark). - Second option: "Apply" — Invoke
$spectra-apply <change-name>to start implementation.
If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, execute
spectra park "<name>"and inform the user to run$spectra-apply <change-name>when ready. Then STOP — do not continue.After the user responds, if they chose "Park", execute
spectra park "<name>"and the workflow is OVER. If they chose "Apply", invoke$spectra-apply <change-name>to begin implementation.
Artifact Creation Guidelines
- Follow the
instructionfield fromspectra instructionsfor each artifact type - Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
- Use
templateas the structure for your output file - fill in its sections - IMPORTANT:
contextandrulesare constraints for YOU, not content for the file- Do NOT copy
<context>,<rules>,<project_context>blocks into the artifact - These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
- Do NOT copy
- Parallel task markers (
[P]): When creating the tasks artifact, first read.spectra.yaml. Ifparallel_tasks: trueis set, add[P]markers to tasks that can be executed in parallel. Format:- [ ] [P] Task description. A task qualifies for[P]if it targets different files from other pending tasks AND has no dependency on incomplete tasks in the same group. Whenparallel_tasksis not enabled, do NOT add[P]markers.
Guardrails
- Create all artifacts needed for implementation. Optional artifacts (those not in the
applyRequiresdependency chain) may be skipped if their inclusion criteria don't apply. - Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
- If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
- NEVER write application code or implement features during this workflow
- NEVER skip the artifact workflow to write code directly
- NEVER reinterpret requirements by ignoring the proposal file
- NEVER invoke
$spectra-apply— this workflow ends after artifact creation. The user decides when to start implementation - If AskUserQuestion tool is not available, ask the same questions as plain text and wait for the user's response
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.

