spec-writing
Skill3 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write and revise requirements, designs, task plans, and test plans with concrete process descriptions, traceable reasoning, and audience-appropriate detail. Provides a stable abstract-verb vocabulary for specification checks.
17 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rajanrx/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- crbnos/carbontheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- rioffe/specchecktheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- ragna-ai/ragna-studiotheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- OrionicsLtd/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- converge-ai-labs/agent-foundationtheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
Other versions17 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 17
- crbnos/carbon★ 2.8ksame name
- converge-ai-labs/agent-foundation★ 825same name
- itseffi/agentic-os★ 114same name
- khuynh22/agent-dev-team★ 9same name
- rioffe/speccheck★ 5same name
- mariomile/builder-os★ 2same name
- rajanrx/skills★ 2same name
- bedomax/webdesigner-agent★ 1same name
- dagarre00/claude-code-template★ 1same name
- OrionicsLtd/claude-skills★ 1same name
7 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 repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-delegateSkill
- cmux-delegateSkill
- cmux-forkSkill
- cmux-second-opinionSkill
- handoverSkill
- harness-initSkill
- harness-loopSkill
- harness-planSkill
- ja-humanizerSkill
- magiSkill
- mcp-convertSkill
- skill-suggestSkill
- spec-codeSkill
- spec-evaluateSkill
- spec-generatorSkill
- spec-implementSkill
- spec-inspectSkill
- spec-orchestrateSkill
- spec-reviewSkill
- spec-rules-initSkill
- spec-testSkill
- spec-to-issueSkill
- spec-workflow-initSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 15 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 27
Use this skill to generate or revise requirements, designs, task plans, test plans, and related specification reports.
- Distinctive: line 40
Keep an overview understandable with general system names.
- Distinctive: line 44
Read the writing rules and abstract-verb vocabulary selected by the Language Rules.
- Very specific: line 45
Treat SW-* and AV-* IDs as stable identifiers when explaining or reporting a rewrite.
- Distinctive: line 57
Do not force all four elements into one sentence when nearby text identifies them unambiguously.
- Distinctive: line 64
Remove unsupported certainty, hedging, intensifiers, previews, summaries, and generic praise that add no requirement or design information.
- Very specific: line 69
Search the draft for every Pattern in the selected abstract-verb table.
- Distinctive: line 71
Keep the term when the surrounding text makes the operation unambiguous, including a defined mathematical operation.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 15 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
spec-writing — Concrete Specification Writing
Apply compact writing rules that let readers follow a process without guessing what the system does or where its output goes.
Language Rules
- Auto-detect the requested output language and write in that language.
- For English output, read writing-rules.md and abstract-verbs.md.
- For Japanese output, read writing-rules.ja.md and abstract-verbs.ja.md.
- An explicit language override takes priority over automatic detection.
- Load one language pair only. Do not combine language-specific rules across pairs.
Scope
Use this skill to generate or revise requirements, designs, task plans, test plans, and related specification reports.
The skill provides two contracts:
writing-rules*defines sharedSW-*rules for process descriptions, audience separation, reasoning, and sequence diagrams.abstract-verbs*is the primary source for stableAV-*candidate patterns and the evidence required to make each use concrete.
Execution Flow
Step 1: Identify the document and audience
- Determine whether the output is a requirement, design, task plan, test plan, or a revision of one.
- Identify the readers of each section before drafting it.
- Keep an overview understandable with general system names. Put types, functions, events, and storage identifiers in implementation-facing sections.
Step 2: Load the writing contract
- Read the writing rules and abstract-verb vocabulary selected by the Language Rules.
- Treat
SW-*andAV-*IDs as stable identifiers when explaining or reporting a rewrite. - Apply the rules before generating new text and before changing existing text.
Step 3: Write observable processes
For every process description, make these elements traceable in the same sentence, list item, paragraph, or adjacent sequence-diagram messages:
- The actor that performs the process.
- The trigger, state, event, or input that starts it.
- The observable action, such as storing, comparing, calculating, sending, rejecting, or stopping.
- The destination or consumer of the result.
Do not force all four elements into one sentence when nearby text identifies them unambiguously. Do not invent an actor, trigger, action, or destination that the source requirements do not establish; use a visible placeholder or record the unresolved decision instead.
Step 4: Apply audience and reasoning rules
- Apply every common
SW-*rule in the selected writing reference. - Apply language-specific rules from that reference when present.
- State the mechanism behind a causal claim.
- Remove unsupported certainty, hedging, intensifiers, previews, summaries, and generic praise that add no requirement or design information.
- In a sequence diagram, name the data in each message and show the receiver's next observable action in an adjacent message or note.
Step 5: Self-check before delivery
- Search the draft for every
Patternin the selected abstract-verb table. - For each match, inspect nearby text for all four process elements and the row's
Required evidence. - Keep the term when the surrounding text makes the operation unambiguous, including a defined mathematical operation.
- Rewrite an underspecified use with concrete actions and destinations.
- Confirm that overview sections remain readable without implementation identifiers and that implementation-facing sections retain identifiers needed to build the system.
- Confirm that every sequence-diagram message names its payload and the receiver's subsequent action.
Error Handling
| Situation | Action |
| A selected reference file is missing | Name the missing file and stop before generating or revising the specification. |
| An abstract-verb table has missing columns or duplicate IDs | Apply the available writing rules, report that the vocabulary self-check could not run, and do not infer replacement rows. |
| The source does not determine one of the four process elements | Preserve the uncertainty with a named placeholder or unresolved decision; do not fabricate behavior. |
| The term describes a defined mathematical operation | Keep the term when its input, transformation rule, and output are explicit. |
Attribution
This skill distills specification-focused rules from k16shikano/japanese-tech-writing, published at https://gist.github.com/k16shikano/fd287c3133457c4fd8f5601d34aa817d under the Unlicense. This skill's repository license remains MIT.
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.

