| name | spec |
| description | Create or modify a spec following the project's spec format and conventions. Use when the user wants to write a new spec, add requirements or scenarios to an existing spec, or restructure spec content. Triggers on: "write a spec", "create a spec", "add a requirement", "spec this out", "define the behavior", "what should the spec look like", "new spec for", "update the spec".
|
Write or Modify a Spec
Help the user create or change a spec that describes desired system behavior.
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Before Anything Else
Read these two files in full before proceeding:
specs/index.spec.md — what a spec is, the required format, naming conventions, and what does and does not belongworkflows/specs/spec-change.workflow.md — the full spec change workflow (framing, grounding, drafting, critic passes, synthesis)
Then follow the workflow phases in order.
Steps
Phase 1 — Frame
Establish the framing before writing anything:
- Desired state only. Ask the user what the system should do, not what's currently broken. If they describe a bug, redirect: "What should the correct behavior be?"
- Scope boundary. Which components does this change touch? (schema, gRPC, runner, operator, CLI, frontend, SDK, RBAC)
- Reserved terms check. Verify no collision with Ambient domain model terms (Inbox, Session, Agent, Project, Credential, SessionMessage, etc.)
Phase 2 — Ground in the codebase
Read actual code and existing specs in the affected areas. Confirm your understanding without wasting the user's time:
- Read existing specs in the target domain
- Grep the components identified in Phase 1
- Summarize back in 3–5 sentences: what you found, what you believe they want, what's ambiguous
- Ask only where the codebase doesn't give a clear answer
Do not proceed to drafting until the user confirms.
Phase 3 — Draft the Spec
Follow the format from specs/index.spec.md:
- Purpose section — one paragraph describing the domain or feature
- Requirements — each states an observable behavior using RFC 2119 keywords (SHALL, MUST, SHOULD, MAY)
- Scenarios — concrete Given/When/Then examples for each requirement that could be turned into tests
Include: data model, write paths, read paths, RBAC, migration plan for all existing consumers.
Phase 4 — Critic Pass
Spawn critics in parallel per the workflow. Standard critics (every spec change):
- Schema / migration
- RBAC / auth
- Hyperloop terminology
Plus scope-driven critics based on the components identified in Phase 1.
Phase 5–6 — Synthesize and Present
Separate findings into factual errors (fix directly) and design decisions (present to user with 2–3 concrete options each, one at a time).
Phase 7 — Apply and Verify
Apply all fixes. Run a second critic pass (Phase 8). Stop when only MINORs remain.
Final — Name and Place the File
- Filename:
<descriptive-title>.spec.md
- If the spec exceeds ~300 words or covers multiple distinct topics, split into a directory with multiple files
- Place in
specs/{domain}/
