tech-spec
Skill5 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Produces implementation-ready technical specifications with concrete contracts, module boundaries, data flows, file changes, and test slices. Use for architecture or implementation handoffs.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ivanrvpereira/.agentstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- SebaBoler/vanguardtheir own version, first seen Oct 22, 2026
- cill-i-am/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- matiopala/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- rx-rz/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- alexander-zuev/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use jira, adr and 3 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.
MicrosoftSkilljira
Jira issue workflows for search, issue updates, transitions, comments, field discovery, and interactive credential setup via the Jira REST API. Use when you need to configure Jira access, search with JQL, inspect an issue, create or update work items, move an issue between statuses, post comments, or discover required fields for issue creation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
asterkinSkilladr
Create Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following project standards. Guides template usage, process, and best practices for documenting architecturally significant decisions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
NVIDIASkilldeep-research
Queue deep, multi-step research and analysis tasks to the DeepAgents worker. Supports execution depth presets, request-specific rubrics, SubAgent delegation, and RubricMiddleware cross-validation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillhandoff
Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- dmmulroy/skills★ 428same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- ivanrvpereira/.agents★ 19same name
- SebaBoler/vanguard★ 5same name
- matiopala/skills★ 2same name
- rx-rz/skills★ 2same name
- cill-i-am/skills★ 1same name
- mitchdowd/skills★ 1same name
- montymi/claude-config★ 1same name
1 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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- architecture-knowledge-baseSkill
- audio-transcribeSkill
- better-uiSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- broSkill
- chatgpt-imagegenSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- decision-roomSkill
- deslopifySkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gemini-ttsSkill
- goalSkill
- readbackSkill
- rephraseSkill
- reply-broSkill
- setup-goalSkill
- skill-cleanerSkill
- strunk-writing-qualitySkill
- technical-writingSkill
- tool-installSkill
- type-breakdownSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 16
Convert context: use when conversation, docs, and code already define the problem and constraints.
- Very specific: line 17
Set up the goal first: use the setup-goal skill when important requirements, boundaries, or acceptance criteria remain unresolved.
- Distinctive: line 25
Read relevant code, tests, docs, project instructions, domain vocabulary, and architectural decisions.
- Distinctive: line 85
Use red-green cycles, one behavior at a time:
- Distinctive: line 88
add one failing behavior test.
- Distinctive: line 89
write the minimum implementation to pass.
- Distinctive: line 119
every requirement is grounded or marked open
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 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
Technical Specification
A tech spec is a typed architecture handoff. Types and call stacks define what changes; prose explains why.
This workflow is design-only. Do not implement. Write durable specs to ai-artifacts/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md unless the user or repository explicitly requires another location.
Choose the path
- Convert context: use when conversation, docs, and code already define the problem and constraints.
- Set up the goal first: use the
setup-goalskill when important requirements, boundaries, or acceptance criteria remain unresolved.
Answer repository questions by inspecting the repository. Ask the user only for decisions.
Build the spec
1. Establish current state
Read relevant code, tests, docs, project instructions, domain vocabulary, and architectural decisions. Trace the existing entrypoint-to-effect flow.
Capture the problem, callers, goals, non-goals, constraints, invariants, affected systems, operational concerns, risks, and open questions. Do not invent missing requirements.
2. Compare real alternatives
Offer materially different designs. They should differ in ownership, interfaces, seam placement, call stack, runtime topology, or state model—not merely names.
For each option show:
- domain and application types
- public interfaces
- module and adapter ownership
- entrypoint-to-effect call stack
- failure and cancellation behavior
- persistence and transaction boundaries
- testing seams
- costs and risks
Choose the recommendation only after comparison.
3. Define contracts
Sketch every new or changed boundary in code:
type Input = { /* parsed application values */ };
type Output = { /* caller-visible result */ };
type ExpectedFailure = FailureA | FailureB;
interface Capability {
execute(input: Input): Promise<Result<Output, ExpectedFailure>>;
}Cover domain values, state variants, request/response shapes, parsers, functions, ports, adapters, records, events, and public APIs as applicable. State what may cross each boundary and what must remain private.
4. Trace behavior end to end
For every affected behavior, show the call and data flow:
raw input
-> protocol parser
-> application/domain input
-> service or domain operation
-> outbound port
-> adapter and external effect
-> typed result or failure
-> protocol projectionInclude old versus proposed flow when changing an existing path. Add authorization, retries, cancellation, idempotency, transactions, observability, and runtime hops when reachable.
5. Map files
List files to add, change, and delete. Give each file one clear responsibility tied to a contract or call-stack step.
6. Plan vertical test slices
Use red-green cycles, one behavior at a time:
- agree on the public seam;
- add one failing behavior test;
- write the minimum implementation to pass;
- repeat with the next behavior.
Cover happy paths, important failures, parser rejection, domain invariants, adapter contracts, persistence/runtime semantics, and end-to-end high-consequence flows. Avoid a horizontal “all tests, then all code” plan.
Required outline
# Title
## Summary
## Current State
## Goals
## Non-Goals
## Invariants and Constraints
## Alternatives
## Recommendation
## Domain Model and Types
## Interfaces and APIs
## Boundaries and Adapters
## Call Stacks and Data Flow
## Files to Add, Change, or Delete
## Red-Green Test Plan
## Risks and Open QuestionsCompress sections that do not apply, but never omit changed contracts, call stacks, seams, or tests merely because they are difficult to specify.
Completion criteria
- every requirement is grounded or marked open
- alternatives are materially different
- each changed boundary has a concrete contract
- each behavior has an end-to-end call stack
- each contract maps to a file or open question
- the test plan proceeds in vertical red-green slices
- another engineer can implement without guessing architecture
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.

