Specs-Driven-Development-Skills-Templates / templates
CLAUDE.md0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Before implementation, read the relevant files under specs/<feature>/: Do not replace an explicit project decision with an assumption. Use the matching installed skill whenever the user's intent triggers it: Execute the canonical SKILL.md instead of imitating it. When one request combines a new or changed specification with implementation, complete the specification workflow and stop. Begin implementation only after the agreement and active slice are approved.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-specSkill
- implement-specSkill
- review-specSkill
- update-specSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this CLAUDE.md into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Very specific: line 5
Before implementation, read the relevant files under specs/<feature>/:
- Distinctive: line 12
Do not replace an explicit project decision with an assumption.
- Distinctive: line 16
Use the matching installed skill whenever the user's intent triggers it:
- Distinctive: line 27
Treat slice numbers as identifiers, not execution order.
- Distinctive: line 33
Keep the earliest affected consumer task blocked while its capability is unavailable.
- Distinctive: line 34
Update provider and consumer specifications together when a capability edge changes.
- Very specific: line 35
Use python3 .agents/scripts/capability_index.py --capability <name> for fast provider and consumer navigation.
- Very specific: line 36
Run python3 .agents/scripts/validate_spec.py --all specs after dependency changes.
- Very specific: line 41
Use Slice size: Standard only for one coherent end-to-end outcome with at most 12 tasks and a longest Depends on: path of at most 8 tasks.
- Distinctive: line 42
Use a slice exception only when every smaller boundary would duplicate an authoritative contract or create a concrete invalid lifecycle or …
- Distinctive: line 50
Use 30–45 minutes as a planning target, not a promise.
- Distinctive: line 52
Keep full repository, production, security, and browser-matrix gates at slice verification.
- Very specific: line 60
Run focused task commands through python3 .agents/scripts/run_proof.py task --task <n> -- <command>.
- Very specific: line 61
Before implementation, extend validate_task_command and test_run_proof.py for the project's test, build, browser, and release commands.
- Very specific: line 63
Run complete verification-gate commands through python3 .agents/scripts/run_proof.py slice -- <command> and record their receipts at slice …
- Distinctive: line 68
Keep deployment-dependent evidence in a release gate when it is not needed for implementation or local verification.
- Very specific: line 69
Treat an unavailable service, runtime, daemon, credential, or network as an environment blocker for the affected proof.
- Very specific: line 70
Keep current requirements, design, task, blocker, and status state in the first three files.
- Very specific: line 71
Keep ## Progress Log in tasks.md as exactly See progress.md.
- Very specific: line 72
Do not mark a slice Verified while a required established check is failing or unavailable without an explicit accepted exception.
- Very specific: line 83
Run python3 .agents/scripts/validate_spec.py specs/<feature> and python3 .agents/scripts/split_progress_log.py --check after a …
- Distinctive: line 88
Run different tasks in parallel only when their dependencies, files, surfaces, proofs, and runtime state are disjoint.
- Distinctive: line 89
Keep orchestration, review, real-exit proof reconciliation, specification write-back, and commit decisions in the main thread.
- Distinctive: line 90
Create the task-boundary commit immediately after proof and write-back pass, then merge the short-lived task branch into the slice branch.
- Distinctive: line 91
Never check out one branch in multiple worktrees, run different task labels concurrently in one worktree, or share mutable runtime state …
- Distinctive: line 92
Treat test-database partitioning, build-cache separation, worktree priming, and local-server startup as project adapters.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 26,980 CLAUDE.md 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
Project Instructions
Source Of Truth
Before implementation, read the relevant files under specs/<feature>/:
requirements.mddefines expected behavior and product boundaries.design.mddefines technical decisions and tradeoffs.tasks.mddefines the active implementation slice and verification state.progress.mdpreserves newest-first implementation, proof, incident, and review evidence without bloating the current task plan.
Do not replace an explicit project decision with an assumption.
SDD Workflows
Use the matching installed skill whenever the user's intent triggers it:
add-spec: define a new feature and its first executable slice.update-spec: record changed requirements, design, scope, ownership, or verification expectations.implement-spec: implement and verify one approved active slice.review-spec: independently review implemented work, re-run its proof, and route findings without fixing them.
Execute the canonical SKILL.md instead of imitating it. When one request combines a new or changed specification with implementation, complete the specification workflow and stop. Begin implementation only after the agreement and active slice are approved.
Cross-Specification Capabilities
- Treat slice numbers as identifiers, not execution order.
- Give every new or changed
tasks.mda## Cross-Specification Dependenciessection after## Active Slice, withRequires:andProvides:lists. - Declare a requirement as
- `capability:<name>` — provider `specs/<feature>#Task <n>` — required before `Task <n>`.Declare a provider as- `capability:<name>` — ready after `Task <n>`.Use- None.for an empty list. - Give each capability one primary provider task and name its readiness write-back in that task's
Owned surfaces. - Depend on the smallest stable capability instead of an entire slice. Do not redefine the provider's schema, interface, authoritative data, or lifecycle in a consumer.
- A capability is available only after its provider task, proof, and readiness write-back are complete.
- Keep the earliest affected consumer task blocked while its capability is unavailable. Keep the slice blocked only when its next executable task is blocked.
- Update provider and consumer specifications together when a capability edge changes.
- Use
python3 .agents/scripts/capability_index.py --capability <name>for fast provider and consumer navigation; the global validator remains the authority. - Run
python3 .agents/scripts/validate_spec.py --all specsafter dependency changes.
Slice Size Gate
- Give every new
tasks.mda## Slice Size Gatesection after## Cross-Specification Dependenciesand before## Task Size Gate. - Use
Slice size: Standardonly for one coherent end-to-end outcome with at most 12 tasks and a longestDepends on:path of at most 8 tasks. - Use a slice exception only when every smaller boundary would duplicate an authoritative contract or create a concrete invalid lifecycle or verification state.
- Split independently executable outcomes into child specifications connected by the smallest stable capabilities. Do not make tasks larger to fit the slice limit.
Task Size Gate
- Give every new or refined
tasks.mda## Task Size Gatesection after## Slice Size Gateand before## Proof Scope Gate. - Give each task exactly one size declaration:
Size: StandardorSize: Exception — <why splitting creates an invalid intermediate state>. - A standard task delivers one independently provable outcome, owns one primary state transition or invariant and normally one adapter or workflow, produces one task-boundary implementation commit, owns at most three acceptance criteria and two entities, and has focused proof expected to run in about ten minutes.
- Use 30–45 minutes as a planning target, not a promise. Expected work beyond 60 minutes or more than one meaningful implementation commit is a split signal.
- Split tasks that combine independently testable behaviors, multiple adapter integrations, domain foundation plus UI plus authentication or recovery, source-owned integration from another specification, or proof modalities that can fail independently.
- Keep full repository, production, security, and browser-matrix gates at slice verification. Use focused task proof and directly applicable safety checks unless the task owns a broader gate.
- Allow an exception only when splitting an atomic migration, transaction, or invariant would create a concrete invalid intermediate state. Complexity, convenience, chronology, or test duration is not an exception.
- Preserve completed task labels and history. When splitting unfinished work, update affected dependencies and capability references together and re-run the individual and global validators.
Task Proof Gate
- Give every new
tasks.mda## Proof Scope Gatesection after## Task Size Gateand before## Implementation Boundary, with exactly- Applies to: all tasks.. - Give each applicable task exactly one
Proof scope:declaration. UseFocusedby default; useBroad — <reason>only when the task owns an inseparable repository-wide, browser-matrix, security, production, or release gate. - Run focused task commands through
python3 .agents/scripts/run_proof.py task --task <n> -- <command>. Add--broadonly for a validator-approved broad task. - Before implementation, extend
validate_task_commandandtest_run_proof.pyfor the project's test, build, browser, and release commands. Record that the included guardrails already cover the stack only when that is true. - Record every successful task receipt in
progress.md. A completed applicable task requires a matching receipt. - Run complete verification-gate commands through
python3 .agents/scripts/run_proof.py slice -- <command>and record their receipts at slice verification.
Readiness And Write-Back
- Report product-requirement, technical-design, implementation, verification, and release readiness separately.
- Keep deployment-dependent evidence in a release gate when it is not needed for implementation or local verification.
- Treat an unavailable service, runtime, daemon, credential, or network as an environment blocker for the affected proof. Continue independent work, record the incident in
progress.md, and record any resulting current blocker intasks.md. - Keep current requirements, design, task, blocker, and status state in the first three files. Keep chronological implementation movement, proof results, incidents, capability readiness, and review checkpoints in
progress.md. - Keep
## Progress Logintasks.mdas exactlySee [progress.md](progress.md). - Do not mark a slice
Verifiedwhile a required established check is failing or unavailable without an explicit accepted exception.
Task Planning And Traceability
- Give every acceptance criterion a stable
[AC-<n>]ID. - Define every data entity as a backticked-name bullet under
## Data and Access Boundaries. - Give every task a stable
Task <n>label and exactly oneDepends on:line naming earlier tasks ornone. - Simulate tasks in listed order before approval. Resolve every schema, interface, route, service, fixture, or earlier output first owned by a later task.
- Give every task one
Owned surfacesfield and exactly oneOwns:line. - Assign every active criterion to exactly one task and every active data entity to at least one task.
- Classify criteria and entities outside the active slice as deferred or release coverage; do not also assign them to an active task.
- Run
python3 .agents/scripts/validate_spec.py specs/<feature>andpython3 .agents/scripts/split_progress_log.py --checkafter a specification or task-boundary change.
Agent Execution Mode
- Delegate task development only when the environment or user authorizes it, and give each sub-agent a closed brief with the task, decided design, hard constraints, explicit path and surface ownership, exclusions, proof, and commit boundary. The main thread owns repository-wide preflight.
- Run different tasks in parallel only when their dependencies, files, surfaces, proofs, and runtime state are disjoint. Give each task a short-lived branch and separate worktree from the slice branch, plus a distinct local-server port when needed.
- Keep orchestration, review, real-exit proof reconciliation, specification write-back, and commit decisions in the main thread. Execute each commit in the worktree that owns its task.
- Create the task-boundary commit immediately after proof and write-back pass, then merge the short-lived task branch into the slice branch. Accumulate task commits on one branch per active slice.
- Never check out one branch in multiple worktrees, run different task labels concurrently in one worktree, or share mutable runtime state between parallel tasks.
- Treat test-database partitioning, build-cache separation, worktree priming, and local-server startup as project adapters. Configure them for the project's stack instead of hard-coding one runtime into the reusable workflow.
Project Checks
- Tests:
<test command> - Build:
<build command> - Type check:
<type-check command> - Lint:
<lint command> - Manual or browser verification:
<verification instructions> - Proof runner:
python3 .agents/scripts/test_run_proof.py - Specification validator:
python3 .agents/scripts/test_validate_spec.py - Capability index:
python3 .agents/scripts/test_capability_index.py - Progress journal split:
python3 .agents/scripts/test_split_progress_log.pyandpython3 .agents/scripts/split_progress_log.py --check - Focused-proof command policy:
<project-specific broad commands rejected by run_proof.py, or why the included policy fully covers this stack>
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.

