agentleFS
buildpad-aibuildpad-ai/skills/buildpad-spec-batch/SKILL.md

buildpad-spec-batch

Skill1 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub

Create complete specs (requirements, design, tasks) for all features in roadmap.md using parallel subagent dispatch by dependency wave.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

16 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    All features have complete spec files (spec.json, requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md)

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    If present, also read for context:

    line 28
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not include these in dependency-wave execution.

    line 31
  4. Very specific:

    If any brief.md is missing, stop and report: "Missing brief.md for: [list].

    line 33
  5. Very specific:

    If roadmap contains ## Existing Spec Updates or ## Direct Implementation Candidates, mention them separately as non-batch items so the user …

    line 53
  6. Very specific:

    Verify each feature has: spec.json, requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md

    line 76
  7. Distinctive:

    If any feature failed, report the error and continue with features that succeeded

    line 77
  8. Distinctive:

    After all waves complete, dispatch a single subagent for cross-spec consistency review.

    line 83
  9. Very specific:

    Update roadmap.md: mark completed specs as [x]

    line 132
  10. Very specific:

    If roadmap.md includes Existing Spec Updates or Direct Implementation Candidates, leave them untouched and mention them as remaining …

    line 133
  11. Distinctive:

    Controller stays lightweight: Only read roadmap.md and brief.md existence checks in main context.

    line 151
  12. Distinctive:

    Wave ordering is strict: Never start a wave until all features in previous waves are complete.

    line 152
  13. Distinctive:

    Parallel within waves: All features in the same wave MUST be dispatched in parallel via Agent tool, not sequentially.

    line 153
  14. Distinctive:

    No partial waves: If a feature in a wave fails, still complete the other features in that wave before reporting.

    line 154
  15. Distinctive:

    If dependency graph has cycles, report the cycle and stop

    line 167
  16. Very specific:

    Stop and report: "No roadmap.md found.

    line 171

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

buildpad-spec-batch Skill

Core Mission

  • Success Criteria:
    • All features have complete spec files (spec.json, requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md)
    • Dependency ordering respected (upstream specs complete before downstream)
    • Independent features processed in parallel via subagent dispatch
    • Cross-spec consistency verified (data models, interfaces, naming)
    • Mixed roadmap context understood without breaking ## Specs (dependency order) parsing
    • Controller context stays lightweight (subagents do the heavy work)

Execution Steps

Step 1: Read Roadmap and Validate

  1. Read .kiro/steering/roadmap.md
  2. Parse the ## Specs (dependency order) section to extract:
    • Feature names
    • One-line descriptions
    • Dependencies for each feature
    • Completion status ([x] = done, [ ] = pending)
  3. If present, also read for context:
    • ## Existing Spec Updates
    • ## Direct Implementation Candidates Do not include these in dependency-wave execution; they are awareness-only inputs for sequencing and consistency review.
  4. For each pending feature in ## Specs (dependency order), verify .kiro/specs/<feature>/brief.md exists
  5. If any brief.md is missing, stop and report: "Missing brief.md for: [list]. Run /buildpad-discovery to generate briefs first."

Step 2: Build Dependency Waves

Group pending features into waves based on dependencies:

  • Wave 1: Features with no dependencies (or all dependencies already completed [x])
  • Wave 2: Features whose dependencies are all in Wave 1 or already completed
  • Wave N: Features whose dependencies are all in earlier waves or already completed

Display the execution plan:

Spec Batch Plan:
  Wave 1 (parallel): app-foundation
  Wave 2 (parallel): block-editor, page-management
  Wave 3 (parallel): sidebar-navigation, database-views
  Wave 4 (parallel): cli-integration
  Total: 6 specs across 4 waves

If roadmap contains ## Existing Spec Updates or ## Direct Implementation Candidates, mention them separately as non-batch items so the user can see the whole decomposition.

Step 3: Execute Waves

For each wave, dispatch all features in the wave as parallel subagents via the Agent tool.

For each feature in the wave, dispatch a subagent with this prompt:

Create a complete specification for feature "{feature-name}".

1. Read the brief at .kiro/specs/{feature-name}/brief.md for feature context
2. Read the roadmap at .kiro/steering/roadmap.md for project context
3. Execute the full spec pipeline. For each phase, read the corresponding skill's SKILL.md for complete instructions (templates, rules, review gates):
   a. Initialize: Read .claude/skills/buildpad-spec-init/SKILL.md, then create spec.json and requirements.md
   b. Generate requirements: Read .claude/skills/buildpad-spec-requirements/SKILL.md, then follow its steps
   c. Generate design: Read .claude/skills/buildpad-spec-design/SKILL.md, then follow its steps
   d. Generate tasks: Read .claude/skills/buildpad-spec-tasks/SKILL.md, then follow its steps
4. Set all approvals to true in spec.json (auto-approve mode, equivalent of -y flag)
5. Report completion with file list and task count

After all subagents in the wave complete:

  1. Verify each feature has: spec.json, requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md
  2. If any feature failed, report the error and continue with features that succeeded
  3. Display wave completion: "Wave N complete: [features]. Files verified."
  4. Proceed to next wave

Step 4: Cross-Spec Review

After all waves complete, dispatch a single subagent for cross-spec consistency review. This is the highest-value quality gate -- it catches issues that per-spec review gates cannot.

Subagent prompt:

You are a cross-spec reviewer. Read ALL generated specs and check for consistency across the entire project.

Read these files for every feature in the roadmap:
- .kiro/specs/*/design.md (primary: contains interfaces, data models, architecture)
- .kiro/specs/*/requirements.md (for scope and acceptance criteria)
- .kiro/specs/*/tasks.md (for boundary annotations only -- read _Boundary:_ lines, skip task descriptions)
- .kiro/steering/roadmap.md

Reading priority: Focus on design.md files (they contain interfaces, data models, architecture). For requirements.md, focus on section headings and acceptance criteria. For tasks.md, focus on _Boundary:_ annotations.

Check the following:

1. **Data model consistency**: Do all specs that reference the same entities (tables, types, interfaces) define them consistently? Are field names, types, and relationships aligned?

2. **Interface alignment**: Where spec A produces output that spec B consumes (APIs, events, shared state), do the contracts match exactly? Are request/response shapes, event payloads, and error codes consistent?

3. **No duplicate functionality**: Is any capability specified in more than one spec? Flag overlaps.

4. **Dependency completeness**: Does every spec's design.md reference the correct upstream specs? Are there implicit dependencies not declared in roadmap.md?

5. **Naming conventions**: Are component names, file paths, API routes, and database table names consistent across all specs?

6. **Shared infrastructure**: Are shared concerns (authentication, error handling, logging, configuration) handled in one spec and correctly referenced by others?

7. **Task boundary alignment**: Do task _Boundary:_ annotations across specs partition the codebase cleanly? Are there files claimed by multiple specs?
8. **Roadmap boundary continuity**: If roadmap includes `Existing Spec Updates` or `Direct Implementation Candidates`, do the generated new specs avoid absorbing that work by accident?
9. **Architecture boundary integrity**: Do the specs preserve clean responsibility seams, avoid shared ownership, keep dependency direction coherent, and include enough revalidation triggers to catch downstream impact?
10. **Change-friendly decomposition**: Has any spec absorbed multiple independent seams that should probably be split instead of kept together?

Output format:
- CONSISTENT: [list areas that are well-aligned]
- ISSUES: [list each issue with: which specs, what's inconsistent, suggested fix]
- If no issues found: "All specs are consistent. Ready for implementation."

After the review subagent returns:

  • Critical/important issues found: Dispatch fix subagents for each affected spec to apply the suggested fixes. If the issue is really a decomposition problem (for example boundary overlap or one spec carrying multiple independent seams), stop and return to roadmap/discovery instead of papering over it locally. Re-run cross-spec review after fixes (max 3 remediation rounds).
  • Minor issues only: Report them for user awareness, proceed to Step 5.
  • No issues: Proceed to Step 5.

Step 5: Finalize

  1. Glob .kiro/specs/*/tasks.md to verify all specs exist
  2. For each completed spec, read spec.json to confirm phase and approvals
  3. Update roadmap.md: mark completed specs as [x]
  4. If roadmap.md includes Existing Spec Updates or Direct Implementation Candidates, leave them untouched and mention them as remaining follow-up items unless already explicitly completed elsewhere

Display final summary:

Spec Batch Complete:
  ✓ app-foundation: X requirements, Y design components, Z tasks
  ✓ block-editor: ...
  ✓ page-management: ...
  ...
  Total: N specs created, M tasks generated
  Cross-spec review: PASSED / N issues found (M fixed)
  Existing spec updates pending: <count or none>
  Direct implementation candidates pending: <count or none>

Next: Review generated specs, then start implementation with /buildpad-impl <feature>

Critical Constraints

  • Controller stays lightweight: Only read roadmap.md and brief.md existence checks in main context. All spec generation happens in subagents.
  • Wave ordering is strict: Never start a wave until all features in previous waves are complete.
  • Parallel within waves: All features in the same wave MUST be dispatched in parallel via Agent tool, not sequentially.
  • No partial waves: If a feature in a wave fails, still complete the other features in that wave before reporting.
  • Skip completed specs: Features with [x] in roadmap.md or existing tasks.md are skipped.
  • ## Specs (dependency order) remains authoritative for batch execution: Other roadmap sections are context, not wave inputs.

Safety & Fallback

Subagent failure:

  • Log the error, skip the failed feature
  • Continue with remaining features in the wave
  • Report failed features in the summary
  • Suggest: "Run /buildpad-spec-quick <feature> --auto manually for failed features."

Circular dependencies:

  • If dependency graph has cycles, report the cycle and stop
  • Suggest: "Fix dependency ordering in roadmap.md"

Roadmap not found:

  • Stop and report: "No roadmap.md found. Run /buildpad-discovery first."

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.