sdd-specify
Skill0 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when creating, reviewing, or revising docs/dev/SPEC.md, focused specification children, or FEATURE-SPEC.md; defining required software behavior, interfaces, data contracts, error semantics, invariants, and objective acceptance for a new or existing system.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- mariano-aguero/spec-driven-development-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- monaccode/astromesh-sddtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- mariano-aguero/spec-driven-development-skill★ 11same name
- monaccode/astromesh-sdd★ 0same 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.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- sdd-conventionsSkill
- sdd-designSkill
- sdd-docsSkill
- sdd-forgeSkill
- sdd-implementSkill
- sdd-integrate-featureSkill
- sdd-manageSkill
- sdd-orientSkill
- sdd-planSkill
- sdd-reportSkill
- sdd-steerSkill
- sdd-tasksSkill
- sdd-tddSkill
- sdd-verifySkill
The file
Files
Specify required behavior
Choose the requested operation and load only its reference. Enter directly when adequate decisions and project evidence exist; do not replay design exploration as ceremony.
Apply sdd-conventions' Development-document QC reference (skills/sdd-conventions/references/development-document-qc.md, bundled dependency). Authoring includes scoped review, correction/recheck and the adjacent report before dependent progression; pure review does not authorize corrections.
| Work | Load |
| Create or revise the complete intended system specification | system specification |
| Define a scoped change to existing specified behavior | change specification |
| Review SPEC quality and identify conflicts | review |
Before authoring, identify accepted decisions and the relevant PROJECT, ARCHITECTURE, DECOMPOSITION, existing SPEC, and applicable focused children. For an existing implementation, inspect only relevant code and tests to establish observed behavior; do not promote an observation into a requirement without an accepted decision. If a material architectural boundary is undecided or governing sources conflict, return that decision to design or the user rather than inventing a contract.
Read-only review can proceed without modifying files. Creating, revising, or removing project documents requires sdd-manage to coordinate the user's request and a current sdd-orient handoff establishing an eligible Git worktree, applicable instructions, affected paths, and ownership of dirty changes. This skill does not implement orientation or authorize another workflow.
SPEC is authoritative for intended observable behavior and acceptance. PROJECT owns the brief; ARCHITECTURE and DECOMPOSITION own structural design; PLAN owns delivery strategy; TASKS and an active FEATURE-TASKS own their respective executable units; layout owns physical paths. Use sdd-conventions when evaluating contract boundaries and necessary decomposition, without moving those shared checks into SPEC procedure. A feature specification states a scoped intended delta; it does not silently replace the complete main SPEC.
Incorporation of an accepted FEATURE-SPEC into main SPEC belongs to sdd-integrate-feature. Direct SPEC corrections remain in the owning system specification workflow.
Report the behavior specified or changed, affected contracts and acceptance conditions, unresolved material questions, and the precise documents inspected or updated. Document work does not authorize code changes, task selection, or continuation into implementation.
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.

