close-spec

name

close-spec

description

When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes).

Close Spec

A spec is a build plan while you're building and a rationale record once you've shipped. Closing flips it from one to the other. The plan was a ladder of slices and predictions; the record is the layer of meaning the code can't hold — why this exists, what it must never break, what you tried that failed. The code is the single source of truth for how; the closed spec is the source of truth for why, and a map into the code.

Do not summarize the implementation. Anyone can read the code. If a paragraph restates what a function does, cut it and point at the function instead.

Workflow

1. Confirm it shipped. The feature is merged or working in-tree and its tests/screenshot gates are green. If slices remain unverified, it isn't done — finish or review first.

2. Diff plan against reality. Read the spec's README and slices, then read what actually landed. Note every place the build diverged from the plan: dropped slices, renamed seams, a mechanic that turned out different, an assumption that broke. The divergences are the most valuable thing to record — they're exactly what a future reader would otherwise re-derive.

3. Move it. specs/<feature>/ → specs/done/<feature>/ (use git mv). Single-file specs: specs/<feature>.md → specs/done/<feature>.md.

4. Rewrite the README as a record, not a plan. Keep:

   • Overview & purpose — what shipped and the problem it solves, in present tense ("the economy settles monthly"), not future ("will add").
   • The reason — why it works this way and not the obvious alternatives; the constraints and trade-offs that forced the shape. This is the part the code cannot tell you.
   • Principles & invariants — the rules the implementation must keep honoring. What must stay true; what would silently break if violated.
   • Pointers into the code — greppable module/type/function names, file paths, and the tests that pin the behavior. Send the reader to the code for mechanics; name the entry points so they can find it in one grep.
   • Dead ends — approaches tried and rejected, with the reason, so nobody re-walks them.
   • Visual provenance — any images that were uploaded as a baseline to match, a comparison target, or inspiration for the look. These are the requirement: they say what "done" had to resemble and why the result took the shape it did. Keep them in-tree and reference them from the README, naming where each came from (a real screenshot, a mood board, a reference game) and what it was driving. Without them a reader sees the outcome but not the standard it was held to.

   Cut: slice-by-slice build order, "next we will…", scaffolding instructions, per-slice verification checklists, and any prose that re-narrates code.

5. Collapse the slices, preserve the imagery. The slices were the build ladder; once shipped they're sediment. Fold anything durable (a divergence, a dead end, an invariant a slice established) into the README, then delete slices/. But keep the baseline, comparison, and inspiration images — the references the work was measured against — and the visualizations/ or assets/ that still help a reader judge the result. These are provenance, not scaffolding: discard a build instruction, never the picture that defined what the build was aiming at. Wire each one into the README's visual-provenance trail so the story of where the requirement came from survives the close.

6. Fix references. Update links that pointed at the old path. If [[memory]] notes or other skills referenced the spec, repoint them.

7. Audit every statement, unbiased. Spawn sub-agents that did not write the spec and lack the conversation, and have them check the final document claim by claim against the actual code and tests. Fan out — one agent per section, or split the claim list across agents — so no single biased pass waves it through. Each agent returns a verdict per statement:

   • Pointer (a named module/type/function/file/test) — does it exist and say what the spec says? Flag stale names and wrong paths.
   • Invariant / principle — is it actually enforced in the code, or just asserted? Flag claims the code contradicts or doesn't back.
   • Overview / reason — is it consistent with what shipped, present tense, no leftover "will"/"next"/slice numbers?
   • Visual provenance — do the referenced baseline/inspiration images still exist in-tree, and does the README say where each came from and what it drove? Flag a result shown with no standard it was held to.

   Treat unsupported, contradicted, or stale statements as defects: fix the spec (or the pointer) and re-audit the changed claims. The spec is not closed while any statement is unverified.

Smell Test

• Could a reader reconstruct this paragraph by reading the code? → cut it, leave a pointer.
• Does it say "will" or "next" or name a slice number? → it's still a plan.
• Did a real decision diverge from the plan and go unrecorded? → that's the one thing worth keeping; add it.
• Was there a baseline or inspiration image you were matching against? → keep it and say what it drove; the result is meaningless without the standard.

Done

The spec lives under specs/done/, reads as why-and-what-must-hold rather than how, names the code that implements it, preserves the baseline and inspiration imagery the work was measured against, and every statement has survived an unbiased audit against the code. A fresh reader gets the intent, the invariants, and the visual standard without the code — the story of why it's done and how the decisions were made — and the mechanics by following the pointers into it.