create-spec

name	create-spec
description	Turn the current conversation context into a spec and submit it as a GitHub issue. Use when the user wants to create a spec from the current context, or invokes `/create-spec`.
disable-model-invocation	true
argument-hint	<feature description>

Create Spec

Synthesize what you already know — from the argument, conversation, or codebase — into a spec (you may know this document as a PRD), then submit it as a GitHub issue. Do NOT interview the user.

If there's no prior conversation, plan, or argument to synthesize from, stop and ask the user to provide context.

Process

1. Explore the repo to understand the current state of the codebase, if you haven't already. Before exploring, follow ../domain-modeling/DOMAIN-AWARENESS.md. Use the project's CONTEXT.md vocabulary throughout the spec.

2. Sketch the major modules you will need to build or modify. Actively look for opportunities to extract deep modules that can be tested in isolation.

   A deep module (as opposed to a shallow module) encapsulates a lot of functionality behind a simple, testable interface that rarely changes.

   Check with the user that these modules match their expectations. Check with the user which modules they want tests written for.

3. Write the spec using the template below and submit it as a GitHub issue via gh issue create. If the working directory is not a GitHub repo, or gh is not authenticated, write the spec to SPEC.md in the working directory instead and tell the user why you fell back.

Spec Template

Problem Statement

The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.

Solution

The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.

User Stories

A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format:

1. As an , I want a , so that

1. As a mobile bank customer, I want to see balance on my accounts, so that I can make better informed decisions about my spending

This list should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.

Definition of Done

Concrete, checkable outcomes that tell us the feature worked — observable behaviours or conditions that hold once it ships, not product KPIs. Each should be verifiable (a check that passes, a behaviour that now holds), not a vague goal.

Non-Functional Requirements

Performance, security, accessibility, and usability constraints the feature must satisfy.

Implementation Decisions

A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:

• The modules that will be built/modified
• The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
• Technical clarifications from the developer
• Architectural decisions
• Schema changes
• API contracts
• Specific interactions

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.

Testing Decisions

A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:

• A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
• Which modules will be tested
• Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)

Out of Scope

A description of the things that are out of scope for this spec.

Further Notes

Any further notes about the feature.