Menu
Define requirements before planning. Use when starting a new feature, when requirements are ambiguous, or when the user says 'write a spec' or 'define requirements'.
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
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "is this over-engineered", or invokes /prune. Complements correctness-focused review; this one only hunts complexity.
Implement code incrementally with quality gates. Use when the user says 'build', 'implement', or when starting the implementation phase of an approved plan.
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
Structured production-incident investigation. Forces evidence-first hypothesis ranking before any code change. Use when given an error message, Sentry alert, failing log, or 'investigate <X>' request.
Fetch and digest Sentry issue data (issue summary, tags, stack trace, breadcrumbs, latest event) by short ID, numeric issue ID, or sentry.io URL. Org-agnostic - works for any Sentry org the local token can access. Use when the user mentions a Sentry issue or short ID (e.g. MY-PROJECT-4X2), pastes a sentry.io issue URL, or asks to investigate/debug a Sentry error.
Create or update a diagram. Picks mermaid vs drawio per rules/diagrams.md, writes the source file, previews via MCP. Use when the user says 'diagram', '/diagram', or asks for a flowchart/architecture/sequence/state diagram.
| name | spec |
| description | Define requirements before planning. Use when starting a new feature, when requirements are ambiguous, or when the user says 'write a spec' or 'define requirements'. |
Write a specification for: $ARGUMENTS
Follow this workflow:
Discovery: ask the user clarifying questions before writing anything. Cover:
rules/communication.md.Draft the spec: based on the answers, write a specification with these sections:
# Spec: <title>
## Problem Statement
<What problem does this solve and for whom?>
## User Stories
- As a <role>, I want <capability> so that <benefit>
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] <Specific, testable criterion>
- [ ] <Specific, testable criterion>
## Non-Functional Requirements
- Performance: <latency, throughput targets>
- Security: <auth, data handling requirements>
- Accessibility: <WCAG level, specific requirements>
## Technical Constraints
- <Stack, infrastructure, API compatibility requirements>
## Out of Scope
- <Explicitly excluded from this work>
## Open Questions
**why-not-mechanizable:** skill workflow guidance; each step requires understanding the surrounding context (repo, task shape, prior state).
- <Anything unresolved that needs a decision>
.claude/state/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-spec-<topic>.md (review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)(review-time: see section note)Do NOT proceed to planning or implementation until the spec is explicitly approved.