Menu
Turn the current conversation into a published spec, then validate it with /council and /best-practices-research — no interview, no tickets.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Plan a huge chunk of work — more than one agent session can hold — as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way is clear. On ticket close, may offer ADRs (promotion into docs/adr/) when ADR-POLICY criteria hold.
Sharpen a plan or design against this codebase via grilling + domain-modeling (CONTEXT.md / ADR offers). May offer /wayfinder when fog appears. Invoke with `/grill-with-docs`.
Applies Dockerfile, Docker Compose, BuildKit, and container security patterns for local development and hardened deployable images. Use when authoring Dockerfiles or compose files, wiring secrets (runtime vs build-time), reproducible bases, PID 1 and healthchecks, volumes and networking, supply-chain hygiene, or troubleshooting compose stacks.
Routes Go work to the right reference guides and conventions for the task. Use when working on Go architecture, implementation, refactoring, concurrency, error handling, testing, performance, or code review.
PostgreSQL database patterns for query optimization, schema design, indexing, and security. Use when writing SQL or migrations, designing schemas, troubleshooting slow queries, implementing Row Level Security, tuning connection pooling, or reviewing database changes. Based on Supabase-leaning Postgres practice.
Applies Python idioms, PEP 8 norms, typing, packaging, concurrency, tooling, and performance discipline to everyday Python code. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or packaging Python; when the user names type hints, dataclasses, pytest, ruff/black/mypy, asyncio, concurrency, EAFP vs LBYL, or Python idioms; or asks for a Python-specific code-quality pass.
| name | to-spec |
| description | Turn the current conversation into a published spec, then validate it with /council and /best-practices-research — no interview, no tickets. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Synthesize a spec (PRD) from what you already know — do not interview. Then validate it once. Do not run /to-tickets or implement unless the user asks in the same turn.
Default tracker: local markdown under work/. If docs/agents/issue-tracker.md exists, follow it. Run /setup-work only when the tracker is not local work/ (or you need to switch / record a non-default tracker).
When you need a discrete decision with a small set of clear options (about 2–6), prefer the AskQuestion tool so the user gets structured choices. Ask one decision at a time when this skill already sequences questions that way.
If AskQuestion is unavailable in the current environment, ask the same choices in ordinary chat (same options, same ordering).
Use plain chat (not forced multiple-choice) when the answer is inherently free-form—for example pasted logs, a paragraph describing a custom tracker workflow, or an open-ended design explanation.
Explore the repo if you haven't already. Use the project's domain glossary; respect ADRs in the area you're touching. Done when: you can write the spec in glossary vocabulary without inventing modules you haven't seen.
Sketch test seams — prefer existing, highest seam; fewer is better (ideal: one). Check with the user that seams match expectations. Done when: user has confirmed the seams (or accepted the default).
Write the spec with the template below; publish to the issue tracker. Done when: the spec is published and reachable by path or issue URL.
Run /council scoped to every area the spec touches.
Done when: every file/area the spec will change has been explored.
Run /best-practices-research on the domains the spec touches. Fold each recommendation into the published spec or reject it explicitly (brief note under Further Notes or Implementation Decisions).
Done when: every recommendation is incorporated or explicitly rejected on the published spec.
Hard stop. Tell the user the spec is ready. Next is /to-tickets → /implement (one ticket per session), or /to-plan → /implement-plan if the remaining build fits one session. Do not start tickets, plans, or implementation unless asked in the same turn.
Done when: this session has stopped without /to-tickets, /to-plan, or implementation unless the user explicitly requested one of those in the same turn.
Skip steps 4–5 only when the user asked for a draft spec without validation.
The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.
The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.
A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:
This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.
A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:
Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.
Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:
A description of the things that are out of scope for this spec.
Any further notes about the feature.
