kiro-spec-tasks
Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Generate implementation tasks for a specification
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★ 1.5k83% same
- aiproxer/aiproxer★ 2291% same
- kyuki3rain/cc-sdd-adr★ 083% 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-initSkill
- kiro-spec-quickSkill
- kiro-spec-requirementsSkill
- kiro-spec-statusSkill
- 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
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
37 rules. 23 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 12 are very specific to this project.
23
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
12
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 13
All requirements mapped to specific tasks
- Very specific: line 32
If -y flag provided: Auto-approve requirements and design in spec.json.
- Very specific: line 39
Read rules/tasks-generation.md from this skill's directory for principles
- Very specific: line 40
If sequential is false: Read rules/tasks-parallel-analysis.md from this skill's directory for parallel judgement criteria
- Very specific: line 41
Read docs/settings/templates/specs/tasks.md for format (supports (P) markers)
- Distinctive: line 49
If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above.
- Common: line 51
After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings before generating tasks.
- Very specific: line 54
Use language specified in spec.json
- Distinctive: line 56
When documenting requirement coverage, list numeric requirement IDs only (comma-separated) without descriptive suffixes, parentheses, …
- Common: line 57
Ensure all design components included
- Common: line 58
Verify task progression is logical and incremental
- Common: line 59
Ensure each executable sub-task includes at least one detail bullet that states what "done" looks like in observable terms
- Common: line 60
Keep normal implementation tasks within a single responsibility boundary.
- Common: line 64
If existing tasks.md found, merge with new content
- Very specific: line 68
Keep the draft task plan in working memory.
- Very specific: line 69
Run the Task Plan Review Gate from rules/tasks-generation.md
- Common: line 71
Every requirement ID appears in at least one task
- Common: line 72
Every design component, contract, integration point, runtime prerequisite, and validation concern is represented
- Common: line 77
No implicit prerequisites remain hidden
- Common: line 79
If issues are task-plan-local, repair the draft and re-run the review gate before writing
- Common: line 80
Keep the review bounded to at most 2 repair passes
- Common: line 81
If review exposes a real requirements/design gap or contradiction, stop and send the user back to requirements/design instead of inventing …
- Very specific: line 85
Before writing tasks.md, run one lightweight independent sanity review of the task graph.
- Common: line 87
If fresh subagent dispatch is available, spawn one fresh review subagent for this step.
- Very specific: line 99
If NEEDS_FIXES, repair the draft once and re-run the sanity review one time.
- Very specific: line 100
If RETURN_TO_DESIGN, stop without writing tasks.md and point back to the exact gap in requirements/design.
- Common: line 101
Keep this bounded. Do not turn it into a second full planning cycle.
- Very specific: line 115
If auto-approve flag (-y) is provided:
- Common: line 121
Ask the user: "Tasks generated.
- Common: line 122
If the user approves:
- Common: line 125
If the user wants changes:
- Common: line 130
Task Integration: Every task must connect to the system (no orphaned work)
- Common: line 135
No implicit prerequisites: If a task requires a runtime, SDK, framework setup, or config file, that setup must be a separate preceding task …
- Common: line 145
All Z requirements covered
- Very specific: line 177
Stop Execution: Do not write a patched-over tasks.md
- Common: line 183
Fallback: Use inline basic structure with warning
- Common: line 186
Stop Execution: All requirements in requirements.md MUST have numeric IDs.
“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
Implementation Tasks Generator
<background_information>
- Success Criteria:
- All requirements mapped to specific tasks
- Tasks properly sized (1-3 hours each)
- Clear task progression with proper hierarchy
- Natural language descriptions focused on capabilities
- A lightweight task-plan sanity review confirms the task graph is executable before
tasks.mdis written </background_information>
<instructions>
## Execution StepsStep 1: Load Context
Read all necessary context:
docs/specs/$1/spec.json,requirements.md,design.mddocs/specs/$1/tasks.md(if exists, for merge mode)- Core steering context:
product.md,tech.md,structure.md - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to requirements coverage, design boundaries, runtime prerequisites, or team conventions that affect task executability
Validate approvals:
- If
-yflag provided: Auto-approve requirements and design in spec.json. Tasks approval is also handled automatically in Step 4. - Otherwise: Verify both approved (stop if not, see Safety & Fallback)
- Determine sequential mode based on presence of
--sequential
Step 2: Generate Implementation Tasks
Load generation rules and template:
- Read
rules/tasks-generation.mdfrom this skill's directory for principles - If
sequentialis false: Readrules/tasks-parallel-analysis.mdfrom this skill's directory for parallel judgement criteria - Read
docs/settings/templates/specs/tasks.mdfor format (supports(P)markers)
Parallel Research
The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:
- Context loading: Spec documents (requirements.md, design.md), steering files
- Rules loading: tasks-generation.md, tasks-parallel-analysis.md, tasks template
If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially.
After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings before generating tasks.
Generate task list following all rules:
- Use language specified in spec.json
- Map all requirements to tasks
- When documenting requirement coverage, list numeric requirement IDs only (comma-separated) without descriptive suffixes, parentheses, translations, or free-form labels
- Ensure all design components included
- Verify task progression is logical and incremental
- Ensure each executable sub-task includes at least one detail bullet that states what "done" looks like in observable terms
- Keep normal implementation tasks within a single responsibility boundary; if work crosses boundaries, make it an explicit integration task
- Collapse single-subtask structures by promoting them to major tasks and avoid duplicating details on container-only major tasks (use template patterns accordingly)
- Apply
(P)markers to tasks that satisfy parallel criteria (omit markers when sequential mode requested) - Mark optional test coverage subtasks with
- [ ]*only when they strictly cover acceptance criteria already satisfied by core implementation and can be deferred post-MVP - If existing tasks.md found, merge with new content
Step 3: Review Task Plan
- Keep the draft task plan in working memory; do NOT write
tasks.mdyet - Run the
Task Plan Review Gatefromrules/tasks-generation.md - Review coverage:
- Every requirement ID appears in at least one task
- Every design component, contract, integration point, runtime prerequisite, and validation concern is represented
- Review executability:
- Each sub-task is an executable 1-3 hour work unit
- Each sub-task has a verifiable deliverable
- Each executable sub-task includes an observable completion bullet
- No implicit prerequisites remain hidden
_Depends:_,_Boundary:_, and(P)markers still match the dependency graph and architecture boundaries
- If issues are task-plan-local, repair the draft and re-run the review gate before writing
- Keep the review bounded to at most 2 repair passes
- If review exposes a real requirements/design gap or contradiction, stop and send the user back to requirements/design instead of inventing filler tasks
Step 3.5: Run Task-Graph Sanity Review
Before writing tasks.md, run one lightweight independent sanity review of the task graph.
- If fresh subagent dispatch is available, spawn one fresh review subagent for this step. Otherwise perform the same review in the current context.
- Provide only file paths, the draft task plan, and merge context if an existing
tasks.mdis being updated. The reviewer should readrequirements.md,design.md, and the task-generation rules directly instead of relying on a parent-synthesized coverage summary. - Check only:
- hidden prerequisites or missing setup tasks
- dependency or ordering mistakes
- boundary overlap or ambiguous ownership between tasks
- tasks that are too large, too vague, cross boundaries without being explicit integration tasks, or are missing a verifiable deliverable
- contradictions introduced between requirements, design, and the task graph
- Return one verdict:
PASSNEEDS_FIXESRETURN_TO_DESIGN
- If
NEEDS_FIXES, repair the draft once and re-run the sanity review one time. - If
RETURN_TO_DESIGN, stop without writingtasks.mdand point back to the exact gap in requirements/design. - Keep this bounded. Do not turn it into a second full planning cycle.
Step 4: Finalize
Write tasks.md:
- Create/update
docs/specs/$1/tasks.md - Update spec.json metadata:
- Set
phase: "tasks-generated" - Set
approvals.tasks.generated: true, approved: false - Set
approvals.requirements.approved: true - Set
approvals.design.approved: true - Update
updated_attimestamp
- Set
Approval:
- If auto-approve flag (
-y) is provided:- Set
approvals.tasks.approved: truein spec.json - Display task summary (task count, major groups, parallel markers)
- Respond: "Tasks generated and auto-approved. Start implementation with
/kiro-impl $1"
- Set
- Otherwise (interactive):
- Display a summary of the generated tasks (task count, major groups, parallel markers)
- Ask the user: "Tasks generated. Approve and proceed to implementation?"
- If the user approves:
- Set
approvals.tasks.approved: truein spec.json - Respond: "Tasks approved. Start implementation with
/kiro-impl $1"
- Set
- If the user wants changes:
- Keep
approvals.tasks.approved: false - Respond with guidance on what to adjust and re-run
- Keep
Critical Constraints
- Task Integration: Every task must connect to the system (no orphaned work)
- Boundary annotations: Required for
(P)tasks, recommended for all (_Boundary: ComponentName_) - Explicit dependencies: Cross-boundary non-obvious dependencies declared with
_Depends: X.X_ - Executable deliverable granularity: Each task must produce a verifiable deliverable (file, endpoint, UI component, config). Infrastructure tasks (project scaffolding, manifest, host integration, build config) must be explicit — never assume they exist
- Observable done state: Each executable sub-task must include at least one detail bullet that makes the completed state visible without adding new bookkeeping fields
- No implicit prerequisites: If a task requires a runtime, SDK, framework setup, or config file, that setup must be a separate preceding task
</instructions>
Output Description
Provide brief summary in the language specified in spec.json:
- Status: Confirm tasks generated at
docs/specs/$1/tasks.md - Task Summary:
- Total: X major tasks, Y sub-tasks
- All Z requirements covered
- Average task size: 1-3 hours per sub-task
- Quality Validation:
- ✅ All requirements mapped to tasks
- ✅ Design coverage and runtime prerequisites reviewed
- ✅ Task dependencies verified
- ✅ Task plan review gate passed
- ✅ Independent task-graph sanity review passed
- ✅ Testing tasks included
- Next Action: Review tasks and proceed when ready
Format: Concise (under 200 words)
Safety & Fallback
Error Scenarios
Requirements or Design Not Approved:
- Stop Execution: Cannot proceed without approved requirements and design
- User Message: "Requirements and design must be approved before task generation"
- Suggested Action: "Run
/kiro-spec-tasks $1 -yto auto-approve both and proceed"
Missing Requirements or Design:
- Stop Execution: Both documents must exist
- User Message: "Missing requirements.md or design.md at
docs/specs/$1/" - Suggested Action: "Complete requirements and design phases first"
Incomplete Requirements Coverage:
- Warning: "Not all requirements mapped to tasks. Review coverage."
- User Action Required: Confirm intentional gaps or regenerate tasks
Spec Gap Found During Task Review:
- Stop Execution: Do not write a patched-over
tasks.md - User Message: "Requirements/design do not provide enough clear coverage to generate an executable task plan"
- Suggested Action: "Refine requirements.md or design.md, then re-run
/kiro-spec-tasks $1"
Template/Rules Missing:
- User Message: "Template or rules files missing in
docs/settings/" - Fallback: Use inline basic structure with warning
- Suggested Action: "Check repository setup or restore template files"
- Missing Numeric Requirement IDs:
- Stop Execution: All requirements in requirements.md MUST have numeric IDs. If any requirement lacks a numeric ID, stop and request that requirements.md be fixed before generating tasks.
Next Phase: Implementation
Tasks are approved in Step 4 via user confirmation. Once approved:
- Autonomous implementation:
/kiro-impl $1 - Specific tasks only:
/kiro-impl $1 1.1,1.2
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.

