spec-driven-development

name	spec-driven-development
description	Use when a significant change needs a durable specification before implementation can begin safely.
targets	["*"]

Spec-Driven Development

Write the specification and its handoff with lifecycle-documentation.

When to Use

• Starting a new project or feature
• Requirements are ambiguous or incomplete
• The change touches multiple files or modules
• You're about to make an architectural decision
• The task would take more than 30 minutes to implement

When NOT to use: Single-line fixes, typo corrections, or changes where requirements are unambiguous and self-contained.

The Gated Workflow

Spec-driven development has four phases. Do not advance to the next phase until the current one is validated.

SPECIFY ──→ PLAN ──→ TASKS ──→ IMPLEMENT
   │          │        │          │
   ▼          ▼        ▼          ▼
 Human      Human    Human      Human
 reviews    reviews  reviews    reviews

Phase 1: Specify

Start with a high-level vision. Ask the human clarifying questions until requirements are concrete.

Surface assumptions immediately. Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:

ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
1. This is a web application (not native mobile)
2. Authentication uses session-based cookies (not JWT)
3. The database is PostgreSQL (based on existing Prisma schema)
4. We're targeting modern browsers only (no IE11)
→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.

Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements.

Build an evidence base before arguing for a requirement. Search the repository for the closest existing behavior, contract, data model, test, and operational convention. Cite exact path:line locations. For each analogue, explain what is reusable and where the analogy stops. When no prior art exists, record the search commands and result instead of implying precedent.

Separate statements explicitly:

• Observation — directly established by code, tests, runtime output, or a primary source.
• Inference — a conclusion drawn from cited observations.
• Decision/recommendation — a chosen trade-off, with rejected alternatives and evidence.

When the candidate specification needs many exceptions, adapters, or compensating rules, invoke find-simplifying-insight before freezing it. Preserve the current model as the null hypothesis; record the candidate model, what it eliminates, its novel prediction, and the cheapest decisive falsification test. Do not accept elegance by itself as evidence.

Use current primary-source links for external standards, framework contracts, or research claims. Include the relevant version or publication date; do not use external convention to overrule observed repository behavior.

Write a spec document covering these six core areas:

1. Objective — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?

2. Commands — Full executable commands with flags, not just tool names.

   Build: npm run build
   Test: npm test -- --coverage
   Lint: npm run lint --fix
   Dev: npm run dev
   

3. Project Structure — Where source code lives, where tests go, where docs belong.

   src/           → Application source code
   src/components → React components
   src/lib        → Shared utilities
   tests/         → Unit and integration tests
   e2e/           → End-to-end tests
   docs/          → Documentation
   

4. Code Style — Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.

5. Testing Strategy — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.

6. Boundaries — Three-tier system:

   • Always do: Run tests before commits, follow naming conventions, validate inputs
   • Ask first: Database schema changes, adding dependencies, changing CI config
   • Never do: Commit secrets, edit vendor directories, remove failing tests without approval

Spec template:

# Spec: [Project/Feature Name]

## Objective
[What we're building and why. User stories or acceptance criteria.]

## Tech Stack
[Framework, language, key dependencies with versions]

## Nonfunctional Requirements
[Measurable quality-of-service targets — performance, reliability, security, scalability]

## Evidence and Prior Art
| Requirement / claim | Evidence | Interpretation and limits | Confidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| REQ-001 | `src/example.ts:42-67` | Existing analogue; reuse validation flow, not storage model | High |

## Commands
[Build, test, lint, dev — full commands]

## Project Structure
[Directory layout with descriptions]

## Code Style
[Example snippet + key conventions]

## Testing Strategy
[Framework, test locations, coverage requirements, test levels]

## Boundaries
- Always: [...]
- Ask first: [...]
- Never: [...]

## Success Criteria
[How we'll know this is done — specific, testable conditions]

## Open Questions
[Anything unresolved that needs human input]

Reframe instructions as success criteria. When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:

REQUIREMENT: "Make the dashboard faster"

REFRAMED SUCCESS CRITERIA:
- Dashboard LCP < 2.5s on 4G connection
- Initial data load completes in < 500ms
- No layout shift during load (CLS < 0.1)
→ Are these the right targets?

Phase 2: Plan

With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:

1. Identify the major components and their dependencies
2. Determine the implementation order (what must be built first)
3. Note risks and mitigation strategies
4. Identify what can be built in parallel vs. what must be sequential
5. Define verification checkpoints between phases

The plan should be reviewable: the human should be able to read it and say "yes, that's the right approach" or "no, change X."

Phase 3: Tasks

Break the plan into discrete, implementable tasks:

• Each task should be completable in a single focused session
• Each task has explicit acceptance criteria
• Each task includes a verification step (test, build, or a driven observation)
• Tasks are ordered by dependency, not by perceived importance
• Each task lands as a commit (one logical change); a milestone groups the tasks/commits that reach a checkpoint

Task template:

- [ ] Task: [Description]
  - Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
  - Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, or an observation you make (drive the flow / screenshot the result)]
  - Files: [Which files will be touched]
  - Traces: [Requirement IDs this task implements]

Phase 4: Implement

Execute tasks one at a time following incremental-implementation and test-driven-development skills. Use context-engineering to load the right spec sections and source files at each step rather than flooding the agent with the entire spec.

Keeping the Spec Alive

The spec is a living document, not a one-time artifact:

• Update when decisions change — If you discover the data model needs to change, update the spec first, then implement.
• Update when scope changes — Features added or cut should be reflected in the spec.
• Commit the spec — The spec belongs in version control alongside the code.
• Reference the spec in PRs — Link back to the spec section that each PR implements.

Verification

Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:

• The spec covers all six core areas
• A human other than the agent has reviewed and approved the spec (external sign-off — the agent cannot tick this itself)
• Success criteria are specific and testable
• Every material repository claim cites exact path:line evidence
• Each substantial requirement names concrete prior art or records the unsuccessful search for it
• Observations, inferences, and recommendations are distinguishable
• External claims cite current primary sources with version/date when relevant
• Boundaries (Always/Ask First/Never) are defined
• The spec is saved to a file in the repository