| name | spec-refine |
| description | Use when an existing docs/plans topic from spec-start needs review feedback folded back in: optional comments.md into qna.md ### answers, resolved threads into spec.md, and the same self-review bar as spec-start. Documentation only inside the topic directory; requires spec.md and qna.md already present. Pair with spec-refine-github for PR round-trips. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
spec-refine (fold comments and Q&A back into the spec)
Take an existing topic directory under docs/plans/—the layout produced by spec-start—and bring it up to date: absorb comments.md, reconcile qna.md, refresh spec.md, then self-review. This is documentation only inside that directory (plus an optional git commit only if the caller explicitly asked to commit).
Do not write production code, scaffold projects, or invoke implementation skills.
Delegation and subagents
Long spec.md bodies, broad repo research, or many comments.md sections can consume main-agent context quickly. Parallel reasoning is fine; parallel writers on the same file are not.
- Orchestrator (main agent): Resolves the topic directory, applies all edits to
spec.md, qna.md, and comments.md, runs Phase 3 self-review, and owns the final message to the user.
- Subagents (optional): Use for narrow work units—one independent
comments.md section (or one thread of sections that explicitly reference each other), or one ## Q-NN whose integration needs deep repo search. Each subagent returns a short summary and proposed edits (what to append or remove, with exact text where possible). The orchestrator merges those proposals; subagents do not patch the same Markdown file concurrently.
- Bounded reads: Prefer headings, line ranges cited in comments, and targeted search over pasting entire large files repeatedly.
For qna.md grammar and self-review depth, stay aligned with spec-start (flat ## Q-NN, ### answers, chronology).
Resolve the topic directory
Paths are relative to the topic directory once resolved.
- Infer the directory from the user message and repo context. Convention:
docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>/ (same as spec-start).
- If multiple candidates match or none is identifiable, stop and report an error—do not guess.
The directory must already contain spec.md and qna.md. Optional: comments.md.
Process overview
flowchart TD
resolveDir[Resolve topic directory]
phase1[Phase 1: comments.md to qna]
phase2[Phase 2: qna into spec]
phase3[Phase 3: self review]
resolveDir --> phase1
phase1 --> phase2
phase2 --> phase3
Phase 1 — comments.md (optional)
Skip this phase if comments.md is missing.
Comment file shape
Reviewers may structure comments.md as multiple top-level sections. Typical patterns (examples—not an exhaustive grammar):
- Optional
# title (for example # Comments).
## … for each comment block. A title line may include optional attribution, for example ## General note — @handle.- ## For question Q-03 — text targets question Q-03 in
qna.md.
- ## For file spec.md lines 30 — text targets a location in
spec.md (line numbers are hints; reconcile with current file content).
Merge into qna.md first when applicable
- For sections that clearly map to
## Q-NN in qna.md, append new ### Answer — … children under that question using the same rules as spec-start: unique slug text in each ### heading; oldest answer first, newest last under the same ## Q-NN; permalink on the line under the heading when long.
- Consume comment text as you fold it in: remove passages from
comments.md once their substance lives under the right ### (or is clearly obsolete). Remove a whole ## … section when nothing usable remains in it.
- Later vs earlier: When two comments conflict, treat later sections in file order as overriding earlier ones unless the earlier text is still needed for traceability—then capture the tension in a new
### Answer — … noting the override.
Remaining general comments
For text that does not map cleanly to an existing ## Q-NN:
- Apply edits to
spec.md when the comment is design-level, or
- Add new
## Q-NN rows to qna.md when clarification is still needed. Assign the next IDs after the current maximum (Q-01 … two-digit style; continue with Q-10, Q-11, … as needed).
Parallelization
For independent sections, you may dispatch a subagent per section (or per thread of mutually referring sections) to draft summaries and proposed qna.md / spec.md edits. The orchestrator applies merges in document order within comments.md when order matters for overrides.
Phase 2 — qna.md → spec.md
For each ## Q-NN in order:
- Read the question bullets and all
### answers.
- If the thread fully resolves the question, update
spec.md so the canonical design matches the decision. Remove or rewrite overruled implementation options so the spec does not read like a menu of dead paths—capture discarded options briefly in qna.md if historical trace matters (new ### or Kind-appropriate update).
- If the thread is only partially resolved, still fold confirmed facts into
spec.md. When it helps reviewers, append a ### Answer — … (synthesis) that states what remains open, who might decide it, and risks—without blocking the run on live Q&A with the user.
- For heavy integration (large codebase, cross-cutting research), dispatch a subagent per
## Q-NN if useful; the orchestrator applies the summarized proposal to spec.md and any new ### / ## Q-NN entries.
Keep spec.md as the canonical design surface; keep debate and attribution in qna.md where it belongs.
Phase 3 — Spec self-review
Re-run the same quality bar as spec-start (“Spec self-review”):
- Placeholder scan: Any "TBD", "TODO", vague requirements? Fix in
spec.md or track in qna.md as ## Q-NN with explicit uncertainty.
- Internal consistency: Sections agree; architecture matches behavior;
spec.md and qna.md agree. Mermaid and links still parse; paths resolve.
- Scope check: Single coherent implementation plan or explicit decomposition in
qna.md.
- Ambiguity check: No requirement readable two ways without a recorded call in
spec.md or qna.md.
qna.md shape: Stable Q-NN IDs in order; real answers use unique ### slugs; chronology preserved.
Fix issues inline. One pass is enough unless edits reintroduce problems.
comments.md lifecycle after Phase 1
When no pending comment text remains, delete comments.md so the topic directory does not carry empty review scratch space. If your tooling or team policy forbids deletion, leave a single-line file stating there are no pending comments—prefer deletion when allowed.
Commit
Commit only if the user or automation explicitly asked to commit. Otherwise leave changes in the working tree and report paths.
For GitHub PR round-trips (ingest PR review comments, commit spec.md / qna.md to the PR branch, optional push and thread replies), use spec-refine-github instead of relying on this skill alone—it owns gh, PR-scoped eligibility, and harness vs local writes.
Aftercare (message to user)
In the final reply, list the topic directory path, summarize what changed in spec.md, qna.md, and comments.md (including deletion), and surface the top remaining ## Q-NN items that still need human decisions (Kind: open, or high blast-radius assumptions).
If the work was driven from a spec PR and you need push/thread-reply automation, point the user at spec-refine-github for the next step.
