| name | as-spec-driven-development |
| description | Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea. |
| modes | ["code"] |
| hiddenFromUi | false |
Spec-Driven Development
Overview
Write a structured specification before writing any code. The spec is the shared source of truth between you and the human engineer — it defines what we're building, why, and how we'll know it's done. Code without a spec is guessing.
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. The spec's entire purpose is to surface misunderstandings before code gets written — assumptions are the most dangerous form of misunderstanding.
Write a spec document covering these six core areas:
-
Objective — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?
-
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
-
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
-
Code Style — One real code snippet showing your style beats three paragraphs describing it. Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.
-
Testing Strategy — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.
-
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]
## 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?
This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve toward a clear goal rather than guessing what "faster" means.
Phase 2: Plan
With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:
- Identify the major components and their dependencies
- Determine the implementation order (what must be built first)
- Note risks and mitigation strategies
- Identify what can be built in parallel vs. what must be sequential
- Define verification checkpoints between phases
Follow planning-and-task-breakdown for the dependency-graph mapping and vertical-slicing mechanics behind these steps; it is the canonical source. The bullets above are a lightweight summary; if they ever diverge, planning-and-task-breakdown takes precedence.
Output convention: Save the plan to tasks/plan.md and the task list to tasks/todo.md, per the /plan command convention. Create tasks/ if it does not exist. Downstream commands (/build, etc.) expect these paths.
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, manual check)
- Tasks are ordered by dependency, not by perceived importance
- No task should require changing more than ~5 files
Follow planning-and-task-breakdown for the full task-sizing and dependency-ordering mechanics; it is the canonical source. The template below is a lightweight inline form; if they ever diverge, planning-and-task-breakdown takes precedence.
Task template:
- [ ] Task: [Description]
- Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
- Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, manual check]
- Files: [Which files will be touched]
Phase 4: Implement
Execute tasks one at a time following skills/incremental-implementation/SKILL.md (incremental-implementation) and skills/test-driven-development/SKILL.md (test-driven-development). Use skills/context-engineering/SKILL.md (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.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|
| "This is simple, I don't need a spec" | Simple tasks don't need long specs, but they still need acceptance criteria. A two-line spec is fine. |
| "I'll write the spec after I code it" | That's documentation, not specification. The spec's value is in forcing clarity before code. |
| "The spec will slow us down" | A 15-minute spec prevents hours of rework. Waterfall in 15 minutes beats debugging in 15 hours. |
| "Requirements will change anyway" | That's why the spec is a living document. An outdated spec is still better than no spec. |
| "The user knows what they want" | Even clear requests have implicit assumptions. The spec surfaces those assumptions. |
Red Flags
- Starting to write code without any written requirements
- Asking "should I just start building?" before clarifying what "done" means
- Implementing features not mentioned in any spec or task list
- Making architectural decisions without documenting them
- Skipping the spec because "it's obvious what to build"
Verification
Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:
