write-spec
Skill0 starsChanged 17 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Turn an idea, issue or PRD into a reviewed spec: problem, scope, testable acceptance criteria (WHEN/THEN), and — for structural changes — a numbered decision record (ADR) with alternatives and a phased plan. Grounds every claim in the existing code first. Use before building anything non-trivial.
28 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- allemaar/open-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dzhng/jevgreptheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- 0xdeafcafe/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- dzhng/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- anthod0/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use implement-spec-with-codex, close-spec and 10 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.
dzhngSkillimplement-spec-with-codex
Run [implement-spec](../implement-spec/SKILL.md) with Codex doing the implementation passes while you orchestrate, integrate, and review. Use when the user asks to implement a spec with Codex, or to run implement-spec with Codex as the implementer.
Also in 4 projects that use this
dzhngSkillclose-spec
When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
Also in 4 projects that use this
wolverin0Skillaudit-decisions
Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.
Also in 4 projects that use this
transitive-bullshitSkillcompare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
Also in 4 projects that use this
LucasMatuszewskiSkillaudit-agents
Audit and maintain agent configuration files (.claude/agents, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, agent-memory). Checks for duplicates, outdated info, naming conflicts, wrong technical facts, and files over 200 lines. Fixes all issues and commits.
Also in 4 projects that use this
antonio-orionusSkillfind-state-machines
Report every implicit state machine in a project, with its states, transitions and flaws.
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +6 more from dzhng
Other versions28 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 28
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- foambubble/foam★ 17ksame name
- dzhng/jevgrep★ 3.2ksame name
- LiberatedPixelCup/Universal-LPC-Spritesheet-Character-Generator★ 1.9ksame name
- dzhng/skills★ 1.5ksame name
- me2resh/apexyard★ 542same name
- AlexPEClub/ai-coding-starter-kit★ 382same name
- dzhng/yap★ 112same name
- dzhng/duet-agent★ 55same name
- smixs/disruptor-skills★ 19same name
18 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 repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-exchangeSkill
- cleanupSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- evidence-rulesSkill
- gradeSkill
- live-ai-checkSkill
- mine-skillsSkill
- open-prSkill
- parallel-workSkill
- plan-tasksSkill
- releaseSkill
- review-changeSkill
- ship-changeSkill
- skill-evalSkill
- test-necessitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 27 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 13
Read hyvemind.json for specs.dir (where decision records live) and specs.nextNumberCommand.
- Distinctive: line 18
Read the earlier decision records that touch this area.
- Distinctive: line 60
Every acceptance criterion must be observable and falsifiable.
- Distinctive: line 65
Keep it short. Cut any section that says nothing.
- Distinctive: line 74
When a phase ships, record it (phase → commit) in the record.
- Distinctive: line 80
No code is built against a spec or contract that is not Accepted.
“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
Write a spec
The aim is a document the next phase can build from and later check against. Without acceptance criteria, "done" can't be checked.
1. Ground it in the code before you write anything
- Read
hyvemind.jsonforspecs.dir(where decision records live) andspecs.nextNumberCommand. - Find what already exists. Search for the feature's nouns and verbs across the repo and list related modules, routes, tables, configs and earlier decision records. A spec that duplicates an existing system is the most expensive kind of mistake.
- Read the earlier decision records that touch this area. If the new change overturns one, plan a correction note for it. Never edit its history.
2. Write the spec
# <Title>
Status: Proposed
Date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
## Problem
Who has it, what it costs them today, and how we know (link the issue, data or user quote).
## Scope
In: … Out (explicitly): …
## Acceptance criteria
- WHEN <situation> THEN <observable result> ← each one becomes a test
- …
## Design
What changes where: modules, data, interfaces. Name the existing pieces you reuse.
## Alternatives considered
"Do nothing" plus at least one other. For each, one line each for **Debt**, **Foreclosure**
(what it rules out later) and **Reversibility** (one-way or two-way door), then why it
lost and what would change your mind.
## Gaps and risks
Gaps: what this doesn't yet cover, each with its path to closing (phase, issue).
Risks: security, data migration, performance, rollback, and every gap with no path
to closing. "None" needs a sentence of why.
## Plan
Phases, each independently shippable, each with its exit check.
## Open questions
- [ ] …Rules:
- Every acceptance criterion must be observable and falsifiable. "Fast" is neither; "p95 < 300 ms on the list endpoint at 1k rows" is both.
- Mark anything you have not verified as unverified.
- Big is not a reason to cut scope. Split it into phases; dropping scope is the user's call.
- Keep it short. Cut any section that says nothing.
3. Structural changes get a numbered decision record
- Get the number from
specs.nextNumberCommandif one is configured. Otherwise use the highest existing number + 1. In a repo with parallel branches, a directory listing can't see unmerged numbers, so prefer the command. - File:
<specs.dir>/<NNNN>-<kebab-slug>.md. Status movesProposed → Accepted → Implemented(orSuperseded by NNNN). - When a phase ships, record it (phase → commit) in the record.
4. Gate
⛔ Show the spec to the user and wait for approval before design review. After the
review's corrections are folded in and the user agrees, set Status: Accepted.
No code is built against a spec or contract that is not Accepted.
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.

