specwright-tool-first

name

specwright-tool-first

description

CRITICAL: Use for specwright CLI tool workflow. Triggers on: specwright, contract, lifecycle, guard, verify, explain, stamp, checkpoint, plan, spec verification, task contract, spec quality, lint spec, run log, "how to verify", "how to use specwright", "spec failed", "guard failed", contract review, contract acceptance, PR review, code review workflow, plan context, codebase scan, task sketch, implementation plan

Specwright Tool-First Workflow

Version: 3.4.0 | Last Updated: 2026-05-31

You are an expert at using specwright as a CLI tool for contract-driven AI coding. Help users by:

• Planning: Render task contracts with contract, generate plan context with plan
• Implementing: Follow contract Intent, Decisions, Boundaries
• Verifying: Run lifecycle / guard to check code against specs
• Reviewing: Use explain for human-readable summaries, stamp for git trailers
• Debugging: Interpret verification failures and fix code accordingly
• Runner-aware workflows: Select Cargo, Maven, Gradle, Android, iOS, or Node/TypeScript runners through spec frontmatter or CLI overrides

IMPORTANT: CLI Prerequisite Check

Before running any specwright command, Claude MUST check:

command -v specwright || cargo install specwright

If specwright is not installed, inform the user:

specwright CLI not found. Install with: cargo install specwright

Core Mental Model

The key shift: Review point displacement. Human attention moves from "reading code diffs" to "writing contracts".

Traditional:  Write Issue (10%) → Agent codes (0%) → Read diff (80%) → Approve (10%)
specwright:   Write Contract (60%) → Agent codes (0%) → Read explain (30%) → Approve (10%)

Humans define "what is correct" (Contract). Machines verify "is the code correct" (lifecycle). Humans do final "Contract Acceptance" — not Code Review.

Language Boundary

Skill files and skill references are reusable assets and must be English-only. Use English examples in this skill. When this skill is used inside the harness workflow, specwright task spec.md defaults to English (visible prose and DSL tokens); Chinese only on explicit request or as content under test. Code, comments, tests, CLI strings, skills, templates, and git commit messages remain English-only.

Quick Reference

Command	Purpose	When to Use
specwright init	Scaffold new spec	Starting a new task
specwright contract <spec>	Render Task Contract	Before coding - read the execution plan
specwright plan <spec> --code .	Generate plan context	Before coding - codebase scan + task sketch
specwright lint <files>	Spec quality check	After writing spec, before giving to Agent
specwright lifecycle <spec> --code .	Full lint + verify pipeline	After edits - main quality gate
specwright guard --spec-dir specs --code .	Repo-wide check	Pre-commit / CI - all specs at once
specwright explain <spec> --format markdown	PR-ready review summary	Contract Acceptance - paste into PR
specwright explain <spec> --history	Execution history	See how many retries the Agent needed
specwright stamp <spec> --dry-run	Preview git trailers	Before committing - traceability
specwright verify <spec> --code .	Raw verification only	When you want verify without lint gate
specwright checkpoint status	VCS-aware status	Check uncommitted state

Runner-Aware Verification

specwright can execute task scenarios through built-in language runners. Prefer spec frontmatter when the contract owns the runner choice, and use CLI overrides only for local diagnosis or one-off verification.

spec: task
name: "iOS XCTest fixture"
runner: ios
runner_config: { scheme: "IosMini", destination: "platform=iOS Simulator,name=iPhone 16 Pro" }
---

Mixed repositories can keep one default runner and route explicit Package: tokens to another runner:

spec: task
name: "Rust API plus admin UI"
runner: cargo
runners:
  node:
    root: web
    packages: { admin: "apps/admin" }
    config: { package_manager: "bun", unit_filter_style: "vitest" }
---

In that contract, scenarios with Package: admin run through Node in web/apps/admin; scenarios with other packages stay on Cargo. Route package paths are relative to the route root. This is explicit routing, not stack auto-detection or workspace inference.

Operational notes for routed Node specs:

• Routed Node source discovery is scoped to the route root; Node source outside that subtree is not scanned for bindings.
• Legacy @spec bindings discovered under a routed Node route execute from the route root, not from an inferred package root; mixed specs should prefer explicit Test: selectors with routed Package: tokens.
• Node zero-match detection trusts the last structured Vitest Tests summary, counts only passed and failed tests as executed, and treats explicit no-test output as zero execution; custom reporters keep exit-code semantics and may emit an unparseable-output warning.
• Narrow --code <file> inputs do not auto-expand to route roots. Verify routed specs with a project or route-root directory scope.

Built-in runners:

Runner	Detection markers	Test command shape	Notes
cargo	Cargo.toml	cargo test -q [-p <package>] <filter>	Default Rust path. Default Cargo JSON remains byte-equivalent unless warnings or runner overrides are present.
maven	pom.xml, prefers mvnw when present	mvn test [-pl <package>] -Dtest=<filter>	Uses JVM binding scan for Java/Kotlin scenarios.
gradle	build.gradle / build.gradle.kts, prefers gradlew when present	gradle :<package>:test --tests <filter>	Maven/Gradle mixed workspaces require exactly one wrapper family or an explicit runner.
android	AndroidManifest.xml plus Gradle markers	Gradle unit or instrumented task selected by Test.level	level: instrumented requires ADB and a connected device/emulator; missing capability becomes Skip.
ios	Package.swift or *.xcodeproj	xcodebuild test -scheme <scheme> -destination <destination> -only-testing:<package>/<filter>	macOS only. Requires Xcode and a booted iOS Simulator; missing capability becomes Skip.
node	package.json	<package-manager> run <script> [filter args]	Generic JavaScript/TypeScript package-script runner. There is no TanStack Start-specific runner; TanStack Start projects use runner: node.

Structured selectors can include Package, Filter, and Level:

Scenario: Android instrumented flow
  Test:
    Package: app
    Filter: com.example.PaymentTest#rejectsExpiredCard
    Level: instrumented

Known runner config keys:

Runner	Keys
ios	scheme, destination
node	package_manager, unit_script, typecheck_script, lint_script, build_script, e2e_script, unit_filter_style, workspace_filter

Unknown runner_config keys are non-blocking warnings in the verification context. Treat spelling mistakes such as destinaiton as review findings even when the lifecycle status still passes.

Node/TypeScript runner v1 behavior:

• Use runner: node for TypeScript, JavaScript, Vite, Vitest, Jest, Playwright, Bun, and TanStack Start package-script verification. Do not use framework-specific runner ids such as vitest, jest, playwright, or tanstack-start; unknown framework ids should be corrected to runner: node.
• Package manager precedence is runner_config.package_manager > package.json.packageManager > a single lockfile marker > npm. Supported values are npm, pnpm, yarn, and bun; invalid values and multiple lockfiles without a package-manager decision fail verification.
• Script mapping defaults are Level: unit -> test, typecheck -> typecheck, lint -> lint, build -> build, and e2e -> e2e. Override these with the corresponding *_script runner config key.
• Unit filters require runner_config.unit_filter_style: vitest emits -- -t <escaped-filter>, jest emits -- --testNamePattern <escaped-filter>, playwright emits -- --grep <escaped-filter>, and none requires Filter: -.
• Non-unit levels (typecheck, lint, build, e2e) require the no-filter sentinel Filter: -.
• A scalar runner: node spec still rejects Package: selectors and runner_config.workspace_filter; use a frontmatter runners: block when one spec needs Cargo plus routed Node package scenarios.
• Missing package-manager executables on PATH are converted to Skip through MissingCapability. Missing or unreadable package.json, missing required scripts, and invalid runner config fail verification.
• Level: e2e is opt-in and reports a browser capability skip by default; it is not part of the default close gate.

Documentation

Refer to the local files for detailed command patterns:

• ./references/commands.md - Complete CLI command reference with all flags

IMPORTANT: Documentation Completeness Check

Before answering questions, Claude MUST:

1. Read ./references/commands.md for exact command syntax
2. If file read fails: Inform user "references/commands.md is missing, answering from SKILL.md patterns"
3. Still answer based on SKILL.md patterns + built-in knowledge

The Seven-Step Workflow

Step 1: Human writes Task Contract (human attention: 60%)

Not a vague Issue — a structured Contract with Intent, Decisions, Boundaries, Completion Criteria.

specwright init --level task --lang en --name "User Registration API"
# Then fill in the four elements in the generated .spec.md file

For rewrite, migration, or parity tasks, prefer the parity-aware scaffold:

specwright init --level task --template rewrite-parity --lang en --name "CLI Parity Contract"

Key principle: Exception scenarios >= happy path scenarios. 1 happy + 3 error paths forces you to think through edge cases before coding begins.

Step 2: Contract quality gate

Check Contract quality before handing to Agent. Like "code review" but for the Contract itself.

specwright parse specs/user-registration.spec
specwright lint specs/user-registration.spec --min-score 0.7

Catches: malformed structure, zero-scenario acceptance sections, vague verbs, unquantified constraints, non-deterministic wording, missing test selectors, sycophancy bias, uncovered constraints, uncovered decisions (decision-coverage), unbound observable behavior decisions (observable-decision-coverage), uncovered output modes (output-mode-coverage), unverified precedence/fallback chains (precedence-fallback-coverage), weak mock-only I/O error scenarios (external-io-error-strength), missing verification-strength metadata on I/O scenarios (verification-metadata-suggestion), missing error paths (error-path), universal claims with insufficient scenarios (universal-claim), boundary entry points without matching scenarios (boundary-entry-point), untested flag combinations (flag-combination-coverage), untagged platform-specific decisions (platform-decision-tag).

Required self-checks before coding:

• specwright parse must show the expected section count and a non-zero scenario count for task specs.
• If Acceptance Criteria: 0 scenarios appears, stop and rewrite the spec before running contract or lifecycle.
• The parser accepts Markdown-heading forms like ### Scenario: and ### Test: for compatibility, but authoring should still emit bare Scenario: and Test: lines by default. Do not invent extra top-level sections like ## Milestones.

Unbound Observable Behavior review:

• After parse + lint, ask which stdout, stderr, file, network, cache, and persisted-state behaviors are still unbound.
• If the task is a rewrite, migration, or parity effort, also ask whether the contract covers:
  • command x output mode
  • local x remote
  • warm cache x cold start
  • fallback / precedence order
  • partial failure vs hard failure
• If any of these surfaces are still only described in prose, switch back to authoring mode and add scenarios before coding.

Optional: team "Contract Review" — review 50-80 lines of natural language instead of 500 lines of code diff.

Step 3: Agent reads Contract, generates plan, and codes

Agent consumes the structured contract and generates plan context:

# Read the contract
specwright contract specs/user-registration.spec

# Generate plan context with codebase scan
specwright plan specs/user-registration.spec --code . --format prompt

The plan command outputs three blocks:

• Contract — the full task contract (same as contract command)
• Codebase Context — files in Allowed Changes paths with summaries, pub signatures, and test function names
• Task Sketch — scenarios grouped by dependency order for implementation sequencing

Use --format prompt to get a self-contained prompt for AI plan generation. Use --depth full to include pub API signatures.

Agent is triple-constrained:

• Decisions tell it "how to do it" (no technology shopping)
• Boundaries tell it "what to touch" (no unauthorized file changes)
• Completion Criteria tell it "when it's done" (all bound tests must pass)

Step 4: Agent self-checks with lifecycle (automatic retry loop)

specwright lifecycle specs/user-registration.spec \
  --code . --change-scope worktree --format json --run-log-dir .specwright/runs

Four verification layers run in sequence:

1. lint — re-check Contract quality (prevent spec tampering)
2. StructuralVerifier — pattern match Must NOT constraints against code
3. BoundariesVerifier — check changed files are within Allowed Changes
4. TestVerifier — execute tests bound to each scenario

Agent retry loop (no human needed):
  Code → lifecycle → FAIL (2/5) → read failure_summary → fix → lifecycle → FAIL (4/5) → fix → lifecycle → PASS (5/5) ✓

Run logs record this history — "this Contract took 3 tries to pass".

The Iron Law

NO CODE IS "DONE" WITHOUT A PASSING LIFECYCLE

If lifecycle hasn't run in this session, you cannot claim completion. If lifecycle ran but had failures, code is not done. No exceptions.

Retry Protocol

When lifecycle fails, follow this exact sequence:

1. Run: specwright lifecycle <spec> --code . --format json
2. Parse JSON output, find each scenario's verdict and evidence
3. For fail: the bound test ran and failed — read evidence to understand why, fix code
4. For skip: the bound test was not found — check Test: selector matches a real test name
5. For uncertain: AI verification pending — review manually or enable AI backend
6. Fix code based on evidence. Do NOT modify the spec file — changing the Contract to make verification pass is sycophancy, not a fix
7. Re-run lifecycle
8. After 3 consecutive failures on the same scenario, stop and escalate to the human

Critical rule: The spec defines "what is correct". If the code doesn't match, fix the code. If the spec itself is wrong, switch to authoring mode and update the Contract explicitly — never silently weaken acceptance criteria.

Red Flags — Stop If You're Thinking This

Thought	Reality
"lifecycle is slow, skip it this once"	Skipping verification = delivering unverified code
"I only changed one line, no need to re-run"	One line can break every scenario
"skip means it's fine"	skip ≠ pass. skip = not verified
"The spec is too strict, let me adjust it"	Changing spec to pass isn't fixing — it's weakening the contract
"3 failures already, just submit what I have"	3 failures → stop and escalate to human
"I ran lifecycle earlier, it should still pass"	"Should" is not evidence. Run it again.
"The test is flaky, not my code"	Prove it: run 3 times. If 2+ pass, investigate flake. If 0-1 pass, it's your code.

Step 5: Guard gate (pre-commit / CI)

# Pre-commit hook
specwright guard --spec-dir specs --code . --change-scope staged

# CI (GitHub Actions)
specwright guard --spec-dir specs --code . --change-scope worktree

Runs lint + verify on ALL specs against current changes. Blocks commit/PR if any spec fails.

Step 6: Contract Acceptance replaces Code Review (human attention: 30%)

Human reviews a Contract-level summary, not a code diff:

specwright explain specs/user-registration.spec --code . --format markdown

Evidence gate: Before presenting results to the reviewer, run specwright explain <spec> --format markdown fresh. Read the output. Confirm all verdicts are pass. Do NOT report results from memory — run the command and read the output in this session.

Reviewer judges two questions:

1. Is the Contract definition correct? (Intent, Decisions, Boundaries make sense?)
2. Did all verifications pass? (4/4 pass including error paths?)

If both "yes" → approve. This is 10x faster than reading code diffs.

Check retry history if needed:

specwright explain specs/user-registration.spec --code . --history

Assisting Contract Acceptance

When helping a human review a completed task:

1. Run specwright explain <spec> --code . --format markdown and present the output
2. If human asks about retry history: run with --history flag
3. If human asks about specific failures: run specwright lifecycle <spec> --code . --format json and extract the relevant scenario results
4. If human approves: run specwright stamp <spec> --code . --dry-run and present the trailers

Step 7: Stamp and archive

specwright stamp specs/user-registration.spec --dry-run
# Output: Spec-Name: User Registration API
#         Spec-Passing: true
#         Spec-Summary: 4/4 passed, 0 failed, 0 skipped, 0 uncertain

Establishes Contract → Commit traceability chain.

Verdict Interpretation

Verdict	Meaning	Action
pass	Scenario verified	No action needed
fail	Scenario failed verification	Read evidence, fix code
skip	Test not found or not run	Add missing test or fix selector
uncertain	AI stub / manual review needed	Review manually or enable AI backend

Key rule: skip != pass. All four verdicts are distinct.

VCS Awareness

specwright auto-detects the VCS from the project root. Behavior differs between git and jj:

Condition	Behavior
.jj/ exists (even with .git/)	Use --change-scope jj instead of worktree
jj repo	Do NOT run git add or git commit — jj auto-snapshots all changes
jj repo	stamp output includes Spec-Change: trailer with jj change ID
jj repo	explain --history shows file-level diffs between runs (via operation IDs)
Only .git/	Use standard git commands (--change-scope staged or worktree)
Neither	Change scope detection unavailable; use --change <path> explicitly

Change Set Options

Flag	Behavior	Default
--change <path>	Explicit file/dir for boundary checking	(none)
--change-scope staged	Git staged files	guard default
--change-scope worktree	All git working tree changes	(none)
--change-scope jj	Jujutsu VCS changes	(none)
--change-scope none	No change detection	lifecycle/verify default

Advanced Features

Verification Layers

# Run only specific layers
specwright lifecycle specs/task.spec --code . --layers lint,boundary,test
# Available: lint, boundary, test, ai

Run Logging

specwright lifecycle specs/task.spec --code . --run-log-dir .specwright/runs
specwright explain specs/task.spec --history

AI Mode

specwright verify specs/task.spec --code . --ai-mode off      # default - no AI
specwright verify specs/task.spec --code . --ai-mode stub      # testing only
specwright lifecycle specs/task.spec --code . --ai-mode caller # agent-as-verifier

AI Verification: Caller Mode

When --ai-mode caller is used, the calling Agent acts as the AI verifier. This is a two-step protocol:

Step 1: Emit AI requests

specwright lifecycle specs/task.spec --code . --ai-mode caller --format json

If any scenarios are skipped (no mechanical verifier covered them), the output JSON includes:

• "ai_pending": true
• "ai_requests_file": ".specwright/pending-ai-requests.json"

The pending requests file contains AiRequest objects with scenario context, code paths, contract intent, and constraints.

Step 2: Resolve with external decisions

The Agent reads the pending requests, analyzes each scenario, then writes decisions:

[
  {
    "scenario_name": "scenario name",
    "model": "claude-agent",
    "confidence": 0.92,
    "verdict": "pass",
    "reasoning": "All steps verified by code analysis"
  }
]

Then merges them back:

specwright resolve-ai specs/task.spec --code . --decisions decisions.json

This produces a final merged report where Skip verdicts are replaced with the Agent's AI decisions.

When to use caller mode:

• When the calling Agent (Claude, Codex, etc.) can read and reason about code
• For scenarios that can't be verified by tests alone (design intent, code quality)
• When you want the Agent to be both implementor and verifier

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Scenario	Use specwright?	Why
Clear feature with defined inputs/outputs	Yes	Contract can express deterministic acceptance criteria
Bug fix with reproducible steps	Yes	Great for "given bug X, when fixed, then Y"
Exploratory prototyping	No	You don't know "what is done" yet - vibe code first
Large architecture refactor	No	Boundaries hard to define, "better architecture" isn't testable
Security/compliance rules	Yes (org.spec)	Encode rules once, enforce mechanically everywhere

Gradual Adoption

Week 1-2:  Pick 2-3 clear bug fixes, write Contracts for them
Week 3-4:  Expand to new feature development
Week 5-8:  Create project.spec with team coding standards
Month 3+:  Consider org.spec for cross-project governance

Common Errors

Error	Cause	Solution
Guard reports N specs failing	Specs have lint or verify issues	Run lifecycle on each failing spec individually
skip verdict on scenario	Test selector doesn't match any test	Check Test: / Package: / Filter: in spec
Quality score below threshold	Too many lint warnings	Fix vague verbs, add quantifiers, improve testability
Boundary violation detected	Changed file outside allowed paths	Either update Boundaries or revert the change
uncertain on all AI scenarios	Using --ai-mode stub or no backend	Expected — review manually
Agent keeps failing lifecycle	Contract criteria too vague or too strict	Improve Completion Criteria specificity

Command Priority

Preference	Use	Instead of
contract	Render task contract	brief (legacy alias)
plan	Contract + codebase + sketch	Manual code exploration
lifecycle	Full pipeline	verify alone (misses lint)
guard	Repo-wide	Multiple individual lifecycle calls
--change	Explicit paths known	--change-scope when paths are known
CLI commands	Tool-first approach	spec-gateway library API

When to Switch to Authoring Mode

During implementation, if you discover:

• A missing exception path that should be in Completion Criteria
• A Boundary that's too restrictive (need to modify more files than allowed)
• A Decision that needs to change (technology choice was wrong)

Switch to specwright-authoring skill, update the Contract FIRST, re-run specwright lint to validate the change, then resume implementation. Do NOT silently work outside the Contract's boundaries.

Escalation

Switch to library integration only when:

• Embedding specwright into another Rust agent runtime
• Testing spec-gateway internals
• Injecting a host AiBackend via verify_with_backend(Arc<dyn AiBackend>)