spec-author
Skill1 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Writes or revises feature specs with user stories and acceptance tests for TDD implementation. Invoked by spec-writer, not directly.
11 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tspugh/curie-coding-blockchain-apptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ifoohoo/artifact-chain-assistanttheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Jaxsbr/sabstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- hams-ollo/zen-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- llopresto87/Cypresstheir own version, first seen Oct 14, 2026
- xin-yi33/coding-agent-crewtheir own version, first seen Sep 1, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- llopresto87/Cypress★ 119same name
- CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkills★ 2same name
- hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills★ 2same name
- abedegno/bircher★ 1same name
- amkfbant/claude-codex-orchestration★ 1same name
- ifoohoo/artifact-chain-assistant★ 1same name
- tspugh/curie-coding-blockchain-app★ 1same name
- xin-yi33/coding-agent-crew★ 1same name
- Jaxsbr/sabs★ 0same name
- marcoslimagon/base-ai-context★ 0same name
1 more not listed
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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-conductSkill
- bugfixSkill
- code-smellsSkill
- deliverSkill
- final-responseSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- go-conventionsSkill
- go-implementorSkill
- go-reviewerSkill
- go-test-strengthSkill
- implementation-principlesSkill
- nextflow-conventionsSkill
- nextflow-implementorSkill
- nextflow-reviewerSkill
- nextjs-fastapi-conventionsSkill
- nextjs-fastapi-implementorSkill
- nextjs-fastapi-reviewerSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- phase-creatorSkill
- phase-reviewerSkill
- prose-principlesSkill
- pr-resolverSkill
- pr-reviewerSkill
- python-conventionsSkill
- python-implementorSkill
- python-reviewerSkill
- spec-proofreaderSkill
- spec-reviewerSkill
- spec-writerSkill
- subagentsSkill
- swift-conventionsSkill
- swift-implementorSkill
- swift-reviewerSkill
- testing-principlesSkill
- tightenSkill
- unslopSkill
- verificationSkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
14
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Read and follow agent-conduct and unslop before starting.
- Distinctive: line 30
Read existing code the feature interacts with.
- Distinctive: line 31
Check dependency files and existing test patterns.
- Distinctive: line 35
Follow the format below. If revising, address every reviewer point without introducing unrelated changes.
- Distinctive: line 40
Verify: all acceptance tests have explicit expected outputs.
- Distinctive: line 88
Independent: no ordering dependencies within a story.
- Very specific: line 98
Follow unslop § Mechanics.
- Distinctive: line 100
Use 4-column TSV for data format examples.
- Distinctive: line 101
Prefer terse bullet lists over prose.
- Distinctive: line 103
Never repeat information already in signatures or test expectations.
- Distinctive: line 107
NEVER create phase files - only spec.md.
- Distinctive: line 109
NEVER invent functionality beyond what the caller described.
- Distinctive: line 110
ALWAYS include exact function signatures for public APIs.
- Distinctive: line 111
ALWAYS specify package and file for each story.
- Distinctive: line 112
ALWAYS minimise spec length - every token counts against the implementor's context window.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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 Author Skill
Read and follow agent-conduct and unslop before starting.
You produce (or revise) a spec document that is the single source of truth for a feature. If someone implements every acceptance test in it, the feature works.
Conciseness is critical. Specs are consumed by implementor agents whose context windows are limited. Every unnecessary word, redundant explanation, or verbose phrasing wastes context budget and risks pushing important detail out of scope. Write the shortest spec that is still unambiguous and complete.
Input
- Feature description + any clarifying answers.
- Output path (e.g.
.docs/myfeature/spec.md). - Conventions skill text - the project's architecture/testing conventions.
- Reviewer feedback (on revision cycles).
Procedure
1. Research
- Study the conventions skill for architecture, patterns, and testing standards.
- Read existing code the feature interacts with.
- Check dependency files and existing test patterns.
2. Write or revise the spec
Follow the format below. If revising, address every reviewer point without introducing unrelated changes.
3. Self-review
Verify: all acceptance tests have explicit expected outputs; no ambiguity; spec alone is sufficient to implement; all types/interfaces are defined or exist in codebase; implementation order is logical; text wraps at 80 cols; ASCII only.
Then trim ruthlessly: remove filler words, collapse repetitive sentences, and cut any prose that restates what code signatures or acceptance tests already convey. If a section can be a bullet list instead of paragraphs, use bullets.
Spec Format
Sections (in order)
# <Feature> Specification- Overview - 1-3 paragraphs: what, why, key behaviours.
- Architecture - packages, files, types, interfaces, data formats, error handling. Complete picture of what to build and where.
- Lettered sections (A, B, C...) - grouped user stories with IDs (A1, B2).
- Implementation Order - numbered phases grouping stories. Each builds on tested foundations from prior phases. Note parallel vs sequential.
- Appendix: Key Decisions - rationale, testing strategy, error policy. Reference implementor/reviewer skills.
User story template
### <ID>: <Short title>
As a <role>, I want <capability>, so that <benefit>.
<Behaviour details, edge cases, error handling.>
**Package:** `<package>/`
**File:** `<directory>/<file>`
**Test file:** `<test-directory>/<test-file>`
<Function signatures, type definitions as needed.>
**Acceptance tests:**
1. Given <precondition>, when <action>, then <explicit expected
outcome>.Acceptance test requirements
- Explicit: exact values, counts, strings, error conditions. Never "should work correctly".
- Self-contained: fully specify preconditions. No guessing needed.
- Independent: no ordering dependencies within a story.
- Framework-appropriate: map naturally to project's test framework
(GoConvey
So(), pytestassert, Vitestexpect()). - Edge cases covered: happy path, empty input, invalid input, boundaries, special characters.
- Memory-bounded (where applicable): explicit heap growth thresholds for streaming.
Formatting
- Follow unslop § Mechanics. Specs are stricter: ASCII only, so
-not em dash, straight quotes,...not ellipsis, and no section marks. - Use 4-column TSV for data format examples.
- Prefer terse bullet lists over prose. Omit articles and filler where meaning is preserved.
- Never repeat information already in signatures or test expectations.
Rules
- NEVER create phase files - only spec.md.
- NEVER implement code.
- NEVER invent functionality beyond what the caller described.
- ALWAYS include exact function signatures for public APIs.
- ALWAYS specify package and file for each story.
- ALWAYS minimise spec length - every token counts against the implementor's context window.
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.

