speckit-specify
Skill0 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
47 rules. 29 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 18 are very specific to this project.
29
Common
Most of the 119 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
18
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 22
Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.
- Very specific: line 23
If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.before_specify key
- Common: line 24
If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
- Very specific: line 27
If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
- Very specific: line 28
If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- Very specific: line 29
When constructing slash commands from hook command names, replace dots (.) with hyphens (-).
- Very specific: line 53
If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently
- Common: line 63
Create a 2-4 word short name that captures the essence of the feature
- Common: line 64
Use action-noun format when possible (e.g., "add-user-auth", "fix-payment-bug")
- Common: line 66
Keep it concise but descriptive enough to understand the feature at a glance
- Very specific: line 75
If a before_specify hook ran successfully in the Pre-Execution Checks above, it will have created/switched to a git branch and output JSON …
- Very specific: line 77
If the user explicitly provided GIT_BRANCH_NAME, pass it through to the hook so the branch script uses the exact value as the branch name …
- Very specific: line 84
If the user explicitly provided SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY (e.g., via environment variable, argument, or configuration), use it as-is
- Very specific: line 86
Check .specify/init-options.json for feature_numbering (preferred) or branch_numbering (deprecated, migration only — will be removed in a …
- Very specific: line 87
If "timestamp": prefix is YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS (current timestamp)
- Very specific: line 88
If "sequential" or absent: prefix is NNN (next available 3-digit number after scanning existing directories in specs/)
- Very specific: line 91
If branch_numbering was used (and feature_numbering was absent), emit a one-line warning: "⚠️ branch_numbering in init-options.json is …
- Very specific: line 104
Write the actual resolved directory path value (for example, specs/003-user-auth), not the literal string SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY.
- Common: line 116
Follow this execution flow:
- Common: line 118
If empty: ERROR "No feature description provided"
- Common: line 123
Only mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] if:
- Common: line 126
No reasonable default exists
- Common: line 130
If no clear user flow: ERROR "Cannot determine user scenarios"
- Common: line 133
Use reasonable defaults for unspecified details (document assumptions in Assumptions section)
- Common: line 135
Create measurable, technology-agnostic outcomes Include both quantitative metrics (time, performance, volume) and qualitative measures …
- Very specific: line 141
Write the specification to SPEC_FILE using the template structure, replacing placeholders with concrete details derived from the feature …
- Common: line 143
Specification Quality Validation: After writing the initial spec, validate it against quality criteria:
- Common: line 186
Document specific issues found (quote relevant spec sections)
- Common: line 194
Update the spec to address each issue
- Common: line 196
If still failing after 3 iterations, document remaining issues in checklist notes and warn user
- Very specific: line 200
LIMIT CHECK: If more than 3 markers exist, keep only the 3 most critical (by scope/security/UX impact) and make informed guesses for the …
- Common: line 222
CRITICAL - Table Formatting: Ensure markdown tables are properly formatted:
- Common: line 223
Use consistent spacing with pipes aligned
- Common: line 226
Test that the table renders correctly in markdown preview
- Common: line 229
Wait for user to respond with their choices for all questions (e.g., "Q1: A, Q2: Custom - [details], Q3: B")
- Common: line 230
Update the spec by replacing each [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker with the user's selected or provided answer
- Very specific: line 240
If it does not exist, or no hooks are registered under hooks.after_specify, skip to the Completion Report.
- Very specific: line 241
If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.after_specify key.
- Common: line 242
If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue to the Completion Report.
- Common: line 283
Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure).
- Common: line 285
DO NOT create any checklists that are embedded in the spec.
- Common: line 289
Mandatory sections: Must be completed for every feature
- Common: line 291
When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as "N/A")
- Common: line 295
When creating this spec from a user prompt:
- Common: line 297
Make informed guesses: Use context, industry standards, and common patterns to fill gaps
- Common: line 304
Think like a tester: Every vague requirement should fail the "testable and unambiguous" checklist item
- Common: line 323
Technology-agnostic: No mention of frameworks, languages, databases, or tools
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 119 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
User Input
$ARGUMENTSYou MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Pre-Execution Checks
Check for extension hooks (before specification):
- Check if
.specify/extensions.ymlexists in the project root. - If it exists, read it and look for entries under the
hooks.before_specifykey - If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
- Filter out hooks where
enabledis explicitlyfalse. Treat hooks without anenabledfield as enabled by default. - For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook
conditionexpressions:- If the hook has no
conditionfield, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable - If the hook defines a non-empty
condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- If the hook has no
- When constructing slash commands from hook command names, replace dots (
.) with hyphens (-). For example,speckit.git.commit→/speckit-git-commit. - For each executable hook, output the following based on its
optionalflag:- Optional hook (
optional: true):## Extension Hooks **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} Command: `/{command}` Description: {description} Prompt: {prompt} To execute: `/{command}` - Mandatory hook (
optional: false):
After emitting the block above you MUST actually invoke the hook and wait for it to finish before continuing. Run it the same way you would run the command yourself in this agent/session (the invocation may differ from the literal## Extension Hooks **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} Executing: `/{command}` EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline.{command}id shown above, e.g. a skills-mode agent runs it as/skill:speckit-...or$speckit-...). Emitting the block alone does not run the hook.
- Optional hook (
- If no hooks are registered or
.specify/extensions.ymldoes not exist, skip silently
Outline
The text the user typed after /speckit-specify in the triggering message is the feature description. Assume you always have it available in this conversation even if $ARGUMENTS appears literally below. Do not ask the user to repeat it unless they provided an empty command.
Given that feature description, do this:
- Generate a concise short name (2-4 words) for the feature:
- Analyze the feature description and extract the most meaningful keywords
- Create a 2-4 word short name that captures the essence of the feature
- Use action-noun format when possible (e.g., "add-user-auth", "fix-payment-bug")
- Preserve technical terms and acronyms (OAuth2, API, JWT, etc.)
- Keep it concise but descriptive enough to understand the feature at a glance
- Examples:
- "I want to add user authentication" → "user-auth"
- "Implement OAuth2 integration for the API" → "oauth2-api-integration"
- "Create a dashboard for analytics" → "analytics-dashboard"
- "Fix payment processing timeout bug" → "fix-payment-timeout"
Branch creation (optional, via hook):
If a
before_specifyhook ran successfully in the Pre-Execution Checks above, it will have created/switched to a git branch and output JSON containingBRANCH_NAMEandFEATURE_NUM. Note these values for reference, but the branch name does not dictate the spec directory name.If the user explicitly provided
GIT_BRANCH_NAME, pass it through to the hook so the branch script uses the exact value as the branch name (bypassing all prefix/suffix generation).Create the spec feature directory:
Specs live under the default
specs/directory unless the user explicitly providesSPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY.Resolution order for
SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY:- If the user explicitly provided
SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY(e.g., via environment variable, argument, or configuration), use it as-is - Otherwise, auto-generate it under
specs/:- Check
.specify/init-options.jsonforfeature_numbering(preferred) orbranch_numbering(deprecated, migration only — will be removed in a future release) - If
"timestamp": prefix isYYYYMMDD-HHMMSS(current timestamp) - If
"sequential"or absent: prefix isNNN(next available 3-digit number after scanning existing directories inspecs/) - Construct the directory name:
<prefix>-<short-name>(e.g.,003-user-author20260319-143022-user-auth) - Set
SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORYtospecs/<directory-name> - If
branch_numberingwas used (andfeature_numberingwas absent), emit a one-line warning: "⚠️branch_numberingin init-options.json is deprecated. Rename tofeature_numbering."
- Check
Create the directory and spec file:
mkdir -p SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY- Resolve the active
spec-templatethrough the Spec Kit preset/template resolution stack (equivalent tospecify preset resolve spec-template) - Copy the resolved
spec-templatefile toSPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/spec.mdas the starting point - Set
SPEC_FILEtoSPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/spec.md - Persist the resolved path to
.specify/feature.json:
Write the actual resolved directory path value (for example,{ "feature_directory": "<resolved feature dir>" }specs/003-user-auth), not the literal stringSPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY. This allows downstream commands (/speckit-plan,/speckit-tasks, etc.) to locate the feature directory without relying on git branch name conventions.
IMPORTANT:
- You must only create one feature per
/speckit-specifyinvocation - The spec directory name and the git branch name are independent — they may be the same but that is the user's choice
- The spec directory and file are always created by this command, never by the hook
- If the user explicitly provided
- Load the resolved active
spec-templatefile to understand required sections. - IF EXISTS: Load
.specify/memory/constitution.mdfor project principles and governance constraints. - Follow this execution flow:
- Parse user description from arguments If empty: ERROR "No feature description provided"
- Extract key concepts from description Identify: actors, actions, data, constraints
- For unclear aspects:
- Make informed guesses based on context and industry standards
- Only mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] if:
- The choice significantly impacts feature scope or user experience
- Multiple reasonable interpretations exist with different implications
- No reasonable default exists
- LIMIT: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers total
- Prioritize clarifications by impact: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details
- Fill User Scenarios & Testing section If no clear user flow: ERROR "Cannot determine user scenarios"
- Generate Functional Requirements Each requirement must be testable Use reasonable defaults for unspecified details (document assumptions in Assumptions section)
- Define Success Criteria Create measurable, technology-agnostic outcomes Include both quantitative metrics (time, performance, volume) and qualitative measures (user satisfaction, task completion) Each criterion must be verifiable without implementation details
- Identify Key Entities (if data involved)
- Return: SUCCESS (spec ready for planning)
- Write the specification to SPEC_FILE using the template structure, replacing placeholders with concrete details derived from the feature description (arguments) while preserving section order and headings.
Specification Quality Validation: After writing the initial spec, validate it against quality criteria:
a. Create Spec Quality Checklist: Generate a checklist file at
SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/checklists/requirements.mdusing the checklist template structure with these validation items:# Specification Quality Checklist: [FEATURE NAME] **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning **Created**: [DATE] **Feature**: [Link to spec.md] ## Content Quality - [ ] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) - [ ] Focused on user value and business needs - [ ] Written for non-technical stakeholders - [ ] All mandatory sections completed ## Requirement Completeness - [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain - [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous - [ ] Success criteria are measurable - [ ] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details) - [ ] All acceptance scenarios are defined - [ ] Edge cases are identified - [ ] Scope is clearly bounded - [ ] Dependencies and assumptions identified ## Feature Readiness - [ ] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria - [ ] User scenarios cover primary flows - [ ] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria - [ ] No implementation details leak into specification ## Notes - Items marked incomplete require spec updates before `/speckit-clarify` or `/speckit-plan`b. Run Validation Check: Review the spec against each checklist item:
- For each item, determine if it passes or fails
- Document specific issues found (quote relevant spec sections)
c. Handle Validation Results:
- If all items pass: Mark checklist complete and proceed to the Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks section
- If items fail (excluding [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]):
- List the failing items and specific issues
- Update the spec to address each issue
- Re-run validation until all items pass (max 3 iterations)
- If still failing after 3 iterations, document remaining issues in checklist notes and warn user
- If [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain:
- Extract all [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] markers from the spec
- LIMIT CHECK: If more than 3 markers exist, keep only the 3 most critical (by scope/security/UX impact) and make informed guesses for the rest
For each clarification needed (max 3), present options to user in this format:
## Question [N]: [Topic] **Context**: [Quote relevant spec section] **What we need to know**: [Specific question from NEEDS CLARIFICATION marker] **Suggested Answers**: | Option | Answer | Implications | |--------|--------|--------------| | A | [First suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] | | B | [Second suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] | | C | [Third suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] | | Custom | Provide your own answer | [Explain how to provide custom input] | **Your choice**: _[Wait for user response]_- CRITICAL - Table Formatting: Ensure markdown tables are properly formatted:
- Use consistent spacing with pipes aligned
- Each cell should have spaces around content:
| Content |not|Content| - Header separator must have at least 3 dashes:
|--------| - Test that the table renders correctly in markdown preview
- Number questions sequentially (Q1, Q2, Q3 - max 3 total)
- Present all questions together before waiting for responses
- Wait for user to respond with their choices for all questions (e.g., "Q1: A, Q2: Custom - [details], Q3: B")
- Update the spec by replacing each [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker with the user's selected or provided answer
- Re-run validation after all clarifications are resolved
d. Update Checklist: After each validation iteration, update the checklist file with current pass/fail status
Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks
You MUST complete this section before reporting completion to the user.
Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.
- If it does not exist, or no hooks are registered under
hooks.after_specify, skip to the Completion Report. - If it exists, read it and look for entries under the
hooks.after_specifykey. - If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue to the Completion Report.
- Filter out hooks where
enabledis explicitlyfalse. Treat hooks without anenabledfield as enabled by default. - For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook
conditionexpressions:- If the hook has no
conditionfield, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable - If the hook defines a non-empty
condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- If the hook has no
- When constructing slash commands from hook command names, replace dots (
.) with hyphens (-). For example,speckit.git.commit→/speckit-git-commit. - For each executable hook, output the following based on its
optionalflag:- Mandatory hook (
optional: false) — You MUST emitEXECUTE_COMMAND:for each mandatory hook:
After emitting the block above you MUST actually invoke the hook and wait for it to finish before continuing. Run it the same way you would run the command yourself in this agent/session (the invocation may differ from the literal## Extension Hooks **Automatic Hook**: {extension} Executing: `/{command}` EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}{command}id shown above, e.g. a skills-mode agent runs it as/skill:speckit-...or$speckit-...). Emitting the block alone does not run the hook. - Optional hook (
optional: true):## Extension Hooks **Optional Hook**: {extension} Command: `/{command}` Description: {description} Prompt: {prompt} To execute: `/{command}`
- Mandatory hook (
Completion Report
Report completion to the user with:
SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY— the feature directory pathSPEC_FILE— the spec file path- Checklist results summary
- Readiness for the next phase (
/speckit-clarifyor/speckit-plan)
NOTE: Branch creation is handled by the before_specify hook (git extension). Spec directory and file creation are always handled by this core command.
Quick Guidelines
- Focus on WHAT users need and WHY.
- Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure).
- Written for business stakeholders, not developers.
- DO NOT create any checklists that are embedded in the spec. That will be a separate command.
Section Requirements
- Mandatory sections: Must be completed for every feature
- Optional sections: Include only when relevant to the feature
- When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as "N/A")
For AI Generation
When creating this spec from a user prompt:
- Make informed guesses: Use context, industry standards, and common patterns to fill gaps
- Document assumptions: Record reasonable defaults in the Assumptions section
- Limit clarifications: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers - use only for critical decisions that:
- Significantly impact feature scope or user experience
- Have multiple reasonable interpretations with different implications
- Lack any reasonable default
- Prioritize clarifications: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details
- Think like a tester: Every vague requirement should fail the "testable and unambiguous" checklist item
- Common areas needing clarification (only if no reasonable default exists):
- Feature scope and boundaries (include/exclude specific use cases)
- User types and permissions (if multiple conflicting interpretations possible)
- Security/compliance requirements (when legally/financially significant)
Examples of reasonable defaults (don't ask about these):
- Data retention: Industry-standard practices for the domain
- Performance targets: Standard web/mobile app expectations unless specified
- Error handling: User-friendly messages with appropriate fallbacks
- Authentication method: Standard session-based or OAuth2 for web apps
- Integration patterns: Use project-appropriate patterns (REST/GraphQL for web services, function calls for libraries, CLI args for tools, etc.)
Success Criteria Guidelines
Success criteria must be:
- Measurable: Include specific metrics (time, percentage, count, rate)
- Technology-agnostic: No mention of frameworks, languages, databases, or tools
- User-focused: Describe outcomes from user/business perspective, not system internals
- Verifiable: Can be tested/validated without knowing implementation details
Good examples:
- "Users can complete checkout in under 3 minutes"
- "System supports 10,000 concurrent users"
- "95% of searches return results in under 1 second"
- "Task completion rate improves by 40%"
Bad examples (implementation-focused):
- "API response time is under 200ms" (too technical, use "Users see results instantly")
- "Database can handle 1000 TPS" (implementation detail, use user-facing metric)
- "React components render efficiently" (framework-specific)
- "Redis cache hit rate above 80%" (technology-specific)
Done When
- Specification written to
SPEC_FILEand validated against quality checklist - Extension hooks dispatched or skipped according to the rules in Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks above
- Completion reported to user with feature directory, spec file path, and checklist results
Other versions124 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- rshade/finfocus★ 11100% same
Edited · 120
- pmndrs/react-spring★ 29k95% same
- unoplatform/uno★ 10k95% same
- elsa-workflows/elsa-core★ 7.9k95% same
- hhyo/Archery★ 7.1k99% same
- pamburus/hl★ 3.3k96% same
- nornir-automation/nornir★ 1.6k98% same
- cloudposse/atmos★ 1.4k95% same
- Azure/agent-landing-zone★ 1.2k99% same
- Azure/GPT-RAG★ 1.2k99% same
- dotCMS/core★ 97196% same
110 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 3
- sunhaoyu-1990/Claude-Code-Cock★ 8same name
- sarveshtalele/mcp-skills-registry★ 2same name
- TienDat-Vna/BackSpec★ 1same name
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.
Used alongsideProjects with it also use speckit-agent-context-update, speckit-git-commit and 9 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.
Sorcha-PlatformSkillspeckit-agent-context-update
Refresh the managed Spec Kit section in the coding agent context file
Also in 12 projects that use this
Sorcha-PlatformSkillspeckit-git-commit
Auto-commit changes after a Spec Kit command completes
Also in 34 projects that use this
patterson-agentsSkillspeckit-baseline
Generate feature specifications by analyzing existing source code.
Also in 3 projects that use this
patterson-agentsSkillclaude-command-converter
Convert Claude Code commands (.claude/commands/*.md) to standard Agent Skills (skills/*/SKILL.md). Use when migrating slash commands to portable skill format, creating skills from existing commands, or standardizing command definitions across AI runtimes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillcommit
Create commit messages following Sentry conventions. Use when committing code changes, writing commit messages, or formatting git history. Follows conventional commits with Sentry-specific issue references.
Also in 4 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 4 projects that use this
- +4 more from Sorcha-Platform
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/00-global.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/01-git-commits.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/10-php-symfony-bundle.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/40-tests-quality.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/50-docs-and-release.mdcCursor rule
- speckit-analyzeSkill
- speckit-checklistSkill
- speckit-clarifySkill
- speckit-constitutionSkill
- speckit-convergeSkill
- speckit-implementSkill
- speckit-planSkill
- speckit-tasksSkill
- speckit-taskstoissuesSkill
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.

