kiro-spec-init
Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Initialize a new specification with detailed project description
3 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- aiproxer/aiproxeredited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- growilabs/growiedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- kyuki3rain/cc-sdd-adredited, first seen Jul 27, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 3
- growilabs/growi★ 1.5k89% same
- aiproxer/aiproxer★ 2292% same
- kyuki3rain/cc-sdd-adr★ 090% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- cc-sdd-restack-after-mergeSkill
- cc-sdd-review-slice-stackSkill
- ci-stable-log-testingSkill
- create-issueSkill
- docker-deployment-guideSkill
- hibernate-pcSkill
- kiro-debugSkill
- kiro-discoverySkill
- kiro-implSkill
- kiro-reviewSkill
- kiro-spec-batchSkill
- kiro-spec-designSkill
- kiro-spec-quickSkill
- kiro-spec-requirementsSkill
- kiro-spec-statusSkill
- kiro-spec-tasksSkill
- kiro-steering-customSkill
- kiro-steeringSkill
- kiro-validate-designSkill
- kiro-validate-gapSkill
- kiro-validate-implSkill
- kiro-verify-completionSkill
- notion-pdfSkill
- playwright-scraperSkill
- pptx-slides-creatorSkill
- pr-creatorSkill
- pytest-marksSkill
- python-readable-codeSkill
- resolve-pr-review-threadsSkill
- sec-diff-reviewSkill
- sec-full-scanSkill
- sec-runtime-scanSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- storage-stateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
2
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 14
Check for Brief: If docs/specs/{feature-name}/brief.md exists (created by /kiro-discovery), read it.
- Very specific: line 16
Check Uniqueness: Verify docs/specs/ for naming conflicts.
- Very specific: line 26
Write spec.json and requirements.md to spec directory
- Very specific: line 29
Do NOT generate requirements, design, or tasks.
- Common: line 43
Keep total output concise (under 250 words)
- Very specific: line 44
Use clear, professional language per spec.json.language
- Common: line 47
Ambiguous Feature Name: If feature name generation is unclear, propose 2-3 options and ask user to select
- Very specific: line 48
Template Missing: If template files don't exist in docs/settings/templates/specs/, report error with specific missing file path and suggest …
- Very specific: line 49
Directory Conflict: If feature name already exists, append numeric suffix (e.g., feature-name-2) and notify user of automatic conflict …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 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
Spec Initialization
<instructions>
## Core Task
Generate a unique feature name from the project description ($ARGUMENTS) and initialize the specification structure.Execution Steps
- Check for Brief: If
docs/specs/{feature-name}/brief.mdexists (created by/kiro-discovery), read it. The brief contains problem, approach, scope, and constraints from the discovery session. Use this to pre-fill the project description and skip clarification questions that the brief already answers. - Clarify Intent: The Project Description in requirements.md must contain three elements: (a) who has the problem, (b) current situation, (c) what should change. If a brief.md exists and covers these, skip to step 3. Otherwise, ask the user to clarify before proceeding. Ask as many questions as needed; do not fill in gaps with your own assumptions.
- Check Uniqueness: Verify
docs/specs/for naming conflicts. If the directory already exists with onlybrief.md(nospec.json), use that directory (discovery created it). - Create Directory:
docs/specs/[feature-name]/(skip if already exists from discovery) - Initialize Files Using Templates:
- Read
docs/settings/templates/specs/init.json - Read
docs/settings/templates/specs/requirements-init.md - Replace placeholders:
{{FEATURE_NAME}}→ generated feature name{{TIMESTAMP}}→ current ISO 8601 timestamp{{PROJECT_DESCRIPTION}}→ from brief.md if available, otherwise $ARGUMENTSja→ language code (detect from user's input language, default toen)
- Write
spec.jsonandrequirements.mdto spec directory
- Read
Important Constraints
- Do NOT generate requirements, design, or tasks. This skill only creates spec.json and requirements.md.
</instructions>
Output Description
Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with the following structure:
- Generated Feature Name:
feature-nameformat with 1-2 sentence rationale - Project Summary: Brief summary (1 sentence)
- Created Files: Bullet list with full paths
- Next Step: Command block showing
/kiro-spec-requirements <feature-name>
Format Requirements:
- Use Markdown headings (##, ###)
- Wrap commands in code blocks
- Keep total output concise (under 250 words)
- Use clear, professional language per
spec.json.language
Safety & Fallback
- Ambiguous Feature Name: If feature name generation is unclear, propose 2-3 options and ask user to select
- Template Missing: If template files don't exist in
docs/settings/templates/specs/, report error with specific missing file path and suggest checking repository setup - Directory Conflict: If feature name already exists, append numeric suffix (e.g.,
feature-name-2) and notify user of automatic conflict resolution - Write Failure: Report error with specific path and suggest checking permissions or disk space
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.

