create-product-spec
Skill313 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create a product spec from a GitHub issue in this repository by applying the shared `write-product-spec` workflow with Oz-specific issue context and output paths. Use when an issue should be turned into a product spec artifact stored under `specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md` and the agent should prepare file changes only, without creating commits or pull requests itself unless a cloud workflow explicitly asks for it.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- mekenthompson/ProductOStheir own version, first seen Jul 23, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- mekenthompson/ProductOS★ 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.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- bootstrap-issue-configSkill
- create-tech-specSkill
- dedupe-issue-localSkill
- dedupe-issueSkill
- evaluate-auto-implement-eligibilitySkill
- implement-issueSkill
- review-pr-localSkill
- review-spec-localSkill
- review-specSkill
- security-review-prSkill
- security-review-specSkill
- triage-issue-localSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- update-dedupeSkill
- update-pr-reviewSkill
- update-triageSkill
- verify-prSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Create a product spec from a GitHub issue for this repository.
- Distinctive: line 16
Use that shared skill as the base behavior and structure unless this wrapper overrides it.
- Distinctive: line 24
do not create or edit Linear issues as part of this workflow
- Distinctive: line 30
If a triggering comment or other workflow-provided comment context is present, treat it as additional context, not as a silent override of …
- Very specific: line 34
Start from the shared write-product-spec guidance and follow its structure and writing standards unless this wrapper says otherwise.
- Very specific: line 35
Read the issue details carefully.
- Very specific: line 37
Create or update specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md.
- Distinctive: line 38
Keep the product spec focused on intended behavior and user-facing requirements.
- Distinctive: line 47
If design context such as a Figma link is present in the issue description or comments, include it.
- Distinctive: line 48
Do not include implementation details, file-level changes, or technical design.
- Very specific: line 49
Do not implement the feature or modify production code as part of this task.
- Very specific: line 50
Do not include issue number references (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 57
Leave the repository with the new or updated product spec file ready to be committed by the workflow.
- Very specific: line 58
When requested by the prompt, leave a ready-to-use pr-metadata.json with branch_name, pr_title, and pr_summary.
- Distinctive: line 59
If the issue is underspecified, still produce the best possible product spec and clearly capture assumptions or open questions in the spec …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
create-product-spec
Create a product spec from a GitHub issue for this repository.
Overview
This skill is a thin Oz wrapper around the shared product-spec workflow:
write-product-spec
Use that shared skill as the base behavior and structure unless this wrapper overrides it. Keep the same emphasis on precise user-facing behavior, invariants, edge cases, validation, and open questions.
The Oz-specific differences are:
- the primary input is a GitHub issue, not a Linear issue
- the output path is
specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md issue_comments.mdand triggering-comment context are first-class inputs- a workflow may also request a structured PR metadata file in
pr-metadata.json - do not create or edit Linear issues as part of this workflow
Inputs
Expect issue details in the prompt, including the issue number, title, description, labels, assignees, and optional prior discussion captured in issue_comments.md.
If a triggering comment or other workflow-provided comment context is present, treat it as additional context, not as a silent override of the issue body. Resolved decisions from comments can refine the spec; unresolved disagreements should remain explicit open questions.
Process
- Start from the shared
write-product-specguidance and follow its structure and writing standards unless this wrapper says otherwise. - Read the issue details carefully. If
issue_comments.mdexists, review it for clarifications, prior decisions, and issue-comment nuance that should influence the spec. - Inspect the repository enough to understand the current user workflow and likely scope before writing the spec.
- Create or update
specs/GH<issue-number>/product.md. - Keep the product spec focused on intended behavior and user-facing requirements. Use the shared skill's sections as the baseline, adapted to this repository and issue format. At minimum, cover:
- summary
- problem
- goals
- non-goals or scope boundaries
- concrete user experience and behavior requirements
- success criteria
- validation
- open product questions
- If design context such as a Figma link is present in the issue description or comments, include it. If no design context exists, make that absence explicit rather than silently omitting it.
- Do not include implementation details, file-level changes, or technical design. Those belong in the tech spec.
- Do not implement the feature or modify production code as part of this task. Limit changes to the product spec artifact. Treat temporary context files such as
issue_comments.mdas scratch input only and do not commit them. - Do not include issue number references (e.g.
(#N),Refs #N) in commit messages. The issue is already linked in the PR. - If the prompt asks for it, write
pr-metadata.jsonat the repository root containing a JSON object with the fieldsbranch_name,pr_title, andpr_summary. Thepr_summaryshould summarize the product and technical planning clearly enough that reviewers can use it directly as the PR body. For spec-only PRs, include a non-closing reference to the source issue such asRelated issue: #<issue-number>rather than closing keywords likeClosesorFixes. - Default behavior: do not stage files, create commits, push branches, open pull requests, or use the GitHub CLI. If the prompt explicitly instructs you to publish a named branch, you may commit and push exactly the requested spec changes to that branch, but still do not open or update the pull request yourself unless the prompt explicitly asks for it.
- In your final response, provide a brief summary of the product spec and call out any assumptions or open questions so the workflow can reuse that summary when creating the PR.
Outputs
- Leave the repository with the new or updated product spec file ready to be committed by the workflow.
- When requested by the prompt, leave a ready-to-use
pr-metadata.jsonwithbranch_name,pr_title, andpr_summary. - If the issue is underspecified, still produce the best possible product spec and clearly capture assumptions or open questions in the spec file and final response.
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.

