agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/to-spec/SKILL.md

to-spec

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Synthesize conversation and codebase context into an unambiguous, buildable technical specification. Use when requirements and design decisions are settled and need to be formalized into a technical spec — even if the user says \"write a spec for this\". Do NOT use when the core idea is still fuzzy and ungrilled.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 180 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Minimal Seams at the Highest Tier: Prefer existing high-level test seams.

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    Key Point: Follow the strict template: 1.

    line 46
  3. Distinctive:

    Action: Document module boundaries, modified interfaces, database schema changes, and API contracts.

    line 54
  4. Very specific:

    Key Point: If the issue tracker is unconfigured, instruct the user to run /setup-engineering-workflows.

    line 60

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 180 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.

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

To Spec

Synthesize settled conversation context and codebase understanding into an unambiguous, buildable technical specification with minimal test seams and complete user stories.

Core Invariants

  1. Pure Synthesis, Zero Interrogation: Synthesize strictly from established context and codebase facts; do not interview the user.
  2. Minimal Seams at the Highest Tier: Prefer existing high-level test seams; never introduce unnecessary internal mocking seams.
  3. Exhaustive User Stories: Generate a comprehensive, numbered list of As an <actor>, I want <feature>, so that <benefit> stories covering all user paths.
  4. Decisions Over Concrete Snippets: Specify architectural decisions, interfaces, and schema changes without fragile, hardcoded code snippets (unless derived from a validated prototype).
  5. Strict Out-of-Scope Demarcation: Explicitly list out-of-scope capabilities to prevent scope creep and unbound work.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Settled Context & ADRs ] ──► [ Codebase Seam Inspection ] ──► [ Spec Document Synthesis ] ──► [ Tracker Publication ]
ComponentResponsibilityFormat / Template
Problem & SolutionFrame user-centric intentProblem / Solution statements
User StoriesEnumerate all functional pathsNumbered standard user stories
Implementation DecisionsDefine module boundaries & contractsArchitecture & schema decisions
Testing DecisionsSpecify external verification seamsBehavior-driven test strategy

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Autonomous Codebase & Seam Inspection

  • Action: Explore the repository to inspect existing modules, domain glossary terms, and ADRs.
  • Key Point: Identify the highest available integration seam to test the feature externally.
  • Why: Testing through high-level seams verifies true system behavior while leaving internal implementation details free to refactor.

Step 2: Formulate Comprehensive User Stories

  • Action: Draft an exhaustive, numbered list of user stories capturing all primary and edge-case user interactions.
  • Key Point: Follow the strict template: 1. As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>.
  • Why: Detailed user stories prevent implementers from making ad-hoc product assumptions during coding.
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Every user story has an explicit actor and tangible benefit
    • Edge cases and failure states are covered as distinct stories
    • No implementation jargon inside user story statements

Step 3: Formalize Implementation and Testing Decisions

  • Action: Document module boundaries, modified interfaces, database schema changes, and API contracts.
  • Key Point: Omit volatile file line numbers or speculative code snippets.
  • Why: Fragile code snippets go stale immediately and misdirect downstream implementation agents.

Step 4: Define Out-of-Scope Boundaries & Publish

  • Action: Detail what is explicitly NOT included, apply the ready-for-agent triage label, and publish to the configured issue tracker or .scratch/<feature-slug>/spec.md.
  • Key Point: If the issue tracker is unconfigured, instruct the user to run /setup-engineering-workflows.
  • Why: Clear negative boundaries prevent scope bloat and keep subsequent ticket decomposition bounded.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"I'll ask the user a few more questions before writing the spec."No interviewing during to-spec.If requirements are still fuzzy, route back to grill-me. to-spec is pure synthesis.
"I will write extensive mock-heavy unit test decisions."Test at the highest possible public seam.Mock-heavy tests break during refactors and fail to verify actual end-to-end functionality.
"Include complete implementation code blocks in the spec."Specify interfaces and decisions, not full code.Implementation code in specs blinds the developer agent to live codebase nuances.
"Skip the out-of-scope section since it seems obvious."Mandatory explicit Out-of-Scope section.Ambiguity in scope boundaries causes runaway scope creep during implementation.

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.

Check your setup, free