writing-task-specs

name

writing-task-specs

description

This skill should be used whenever the user asks to "create a ticket", "write a task", "scope this out", "break this down", "raise a bug", "create a parent", "plan this feature", or any variant where work is being captured. Also use when the user describes a problem, bug, or feature idea and the natural next step is a written spec. Enforces the task-spec shapes (bug, small feature, large feature scoping, product/user story) and the conventions around parent/sub-task breakdown as tracker issues and projects (see `task-tracker` for the tracker itself and its commands).

Writing Task Specs

Produce clear, consistent task specs in the task tracker that match the shape of the work. A great spec lets a developer (or AI agent) pick it up and start without asking questions.

This skill owns the shapes of a good spec; the task-tracker skill owns the tracker itself — which tool it is, the team, the project-is-an-app model, the state lifecycle, and every command form. Read task-tracker for how to create and wire what this skill describes; the short version of the model:

Every issue belongs to an app's project (see task-tracker for the project-is-an-app model). A large feature is a parent issue inside its app's project — not a project of its own.

• Bug / small feature → a single issue in the app's project. Bugs carry the bug label.
• User story → an issue in Backlog, written in plain language, not technically scoped. When a developer picks it up and scopes it, it spawns a large feature.
• Large feature (scoped) → a parent issue with one sub-issue per sub-task. The parent issue's description + (for a heavy concept) a tracker document hold the spec; waves are encoded by blocking relations between sub-issues (a blocked-by edge, optionally a wave-N label); estimate is the issue estimate field. See task-tracker for the relation and document commands.

Critical rules

• Match the spec shape to the work — do not force a bug template onto a feature, or vice versa
• For large features, do the scoping work in conversation with the user before creating the parent issue and sub-issues — do not invent sub-tasks without confirming the breakdown
• Sub-tasks must respect the deployment model: each one is small, independently mergeable, and revertible
• Every sub-task solves exactly one problem — see micro-prs' one-purpose test.
• Every large feature's first sub-issue is the goal & verification sub-issue — see below. Write it before any code sub-issue.
• Attach every issue to the matching app project (Til, Watch, Listen, Game, Docs, Main; see task-tracker) — a large feature is a parent issue inside its app's project, not a project of its own
• Before starting work on an issue, start it in the tracker (see task-tracker)
• Every ticket opens in plain words — see below. No exceptions.

Every ticket opens in plain words

Whatever the shape, the first thing in the description is a plain-English orientation block — the ticket's answer to "what is this about?" Anyone who opens it — a non-technical tester, a first-week dev, the owner skimming the tracker on their phone — must understand what is wrong (or wanted) and why it matters before a single file path, symbol name, or domain acronym appears.

The jargon-free law itself (what counts as plain, the comprehension test it must pass, worked before/after examples) lives in the plain-english skill — load it before writing this block. This skill only owns where the block sits and its header per shape:

**In plain words**  _(no code, no jargon — anyone can read this)_

[2–4 sentences. What a user actually experiences going wrong, or wants — and why it matters. If a number is wrong, show it with round numbers. Must pass `plain-english`'s comprehension test.]

This block is mandatory on the Bug, Small feature, and Large-feature-parent shapes. The User story already opens this way — its **The user's problem** section is the plain-words block, no separate header needed. A sub-issue (the small child of a large feature) opens with a one-line **Why this matters** instead — same law, just one sentence: what part of the user-facing feature this piece contributes to, so whoever picks it up knows the point without decoding the title or re-reading the parent.

The four spec shapes

Before writing anything, identify which shape applies. The shapes are not interchangeable — they serve different purposes and have different audiences.

Shape	Purpose	Typical outcome
Bug	Something is broken. Specific, reproducible.	One issue → one PR fix
Small feature	A single focused change that maps to one PR	One issue → one PR
User story	A user need or product direction, written in plain language. Not technically scoped.	One issue in Backlog → later becomes a parent issue when a developer picks it up
Large feature (scoped)	A technically broken-down feature with sequenced sub-tasks. The result of scoping a user story.	One parent issue + sub-issues → many PRs

The user story → large feature progression

These two shapes are connected. A user story describes what and why from the user's perspective. When a developer picks it up, they scope it technically — that scoping produces a parent issue (with sub-issues) inside the app's project.

The user story content often gets carried forward into the parent issue's context. The user story issue stays as a reference — link it from the parent issue (mention it in the description and relate the parent to it).

User story issue (plain language, user perspective, in Backlog)
    ↓ developer picks it up, scopes technically
Parent issue (description + document, sub-issues wired by blocking relations)
    ↓ sub-issues get worked
PRs merge to main

Not every user story becomes a large feature — sometimes scoping reveals it's actually a small feature. That's fine. The point is that the user story doesn't try to answer technical questions.

Title and slug conventions

The issue/project title should be specific enough that a developer knows what they're looking at before opening it. The tracker assigns the identifier; you don't pick one (see task-tracker).

• Active voice or noun phrase, no gerunds in active titles ("Fix" not "Fixing")
• Reference the app or domain when relevant (library, listen, watch, til, finance, journal)
• No square-bracket prefixes — put the domain in the title naturally
• No Claude / AI attribution

A slug is still useful — it's the kebab-case short form derived from the title, used to name the worktree and branch when the work starts (see parallel-workflow). Keep it short: sticky-progress-bar, bulk-import-tracks.

Good titles:

• Library progress bar loses its label when many chapters are listed
• Add bulk import for listen playlist tracks
• Migrate library read path to compute-on-read GraphQL
• Document ingestion — AI extraction with human review

Bad:

• Bug in library (vague)
• [finance] Fix totals (square brackets, not specific — use the domain in the title naturally)
• As a user I want to import tracks (user-story prefix, redundant for the title)

Shape 1 — Bug

For a specific, reproducible issue. Direct, short, focused on getting the fix right. Create a single issue with the bug label, ready to pick up, and an estimate. The body below is the issue description (tracker descriptions are Markdown).

Description structure

**In plain words**  _(see `plain-english`)_

[2–4 sentences: what a user sees going wrong and why it matters.]

**Problem**

[1–3 sentences. What is broken, where, who reported it. Be specific enough that the reader can picture the bug without seeing it.]

**Root cause**

[If known: the underlying reason. Skip if not yet investigated — leave a note that root cause needs investigation.]

**Solution**

[Proposed fix. Key files if obvious. Skip if the fix path is unclear and needs investigation first.]

**Acceptance criteria**

* [Concrete, verifiable outcome 1]
* [Concrete, verifiable outcome 2]
* [No regression on X]

Example — the library progress bug

Created as a bug-labelled issue in the Main app's project, ready to pick up, estimate 1 (library is a feature area of the main app; see task-tracker for the create command), where the description file holds:

**In plain words**

In the Main app's library, reading a long book loses the progress bar partway through — once you scroll past the first few chapters, the bar that shows your current chapter and how far through the book you are just disappears. You can keep reading, but you lose track of where you are.

**Problem**

When a book in the library app has many chapters, scrolling down to the chapters at the bottom of the reader loses the sticky progress bar that shows current chapter and percentage. The reader can't tell how far through the book they are, making it hard to resume.

Reported by a user during testing on a long audiobook.

**Root cause**

The progress bar relies on `position: sticky; top: 0`, but the reader's parent containers don't constrain height, so the chapter list grows to full content height and the page scrolls rather than the reader's internal scroll container. Since `position: sticky` only works relative to the nearest scrolling ancestor, the bar scrolls away.

**Solution**

Give the reader wrapper a constrained height (e.g. `calc(100vh - <header height>)`) so the reader's built-in `overflow-y: auto` activates and becomes the scroll context. The existing sticky CSS on the progress bar will then keep it pinned at the top.

Key files:
* `apps/main/src/components/ReaderLayout.tsx` — the wrapper has `overflow: 'hidden'` which may also interfere
* `apps/main/src/components/BookReader.tsx` — the Stack wrapping the reader needs a height constraint

**Acceptance criteria**

* Progress bar remains visible when scrolling through a book with many chapters
* The chapter list on the left stays in sync with the progress bar
* No layout regressions on short books

Bug tips

• Always note who reported it if known — useful for follow-up
• If root cause is unclear, write "Root cause: needs investigation" rather than guessing
• Acceptance criteria should include "no regression" checks where the fix touches shared code

Shape 2 — Small feature / improvement

For a single focused change that maps to one PR. Short spec, no sub-tasks. A single issue (ready to pick up, an estimate, attached to the relevant project).

Description structure

**In plain words**  _(see `plain-english`)_

[2–4 sentences: what the user can't do easily today, what they'll be able to do after, and why it's worth building.]

**Problem**

[What user need or friction this addresses. 1–2 sentences.]

**Proposed solution**

[What's being built. Key behaviour. 2–4 sentences.]

**Acceptance criteria**

* [Concrete outcome 1]
* [Concrete outcome 2]

Example

A Listen-project issue, ready to pick up, estimate 4 (see task-tracker for the create command), description:

**In plain words**

Building a playlist in the Listen app means adding tracks one at a time, even if you already have a list of 15+ songs written down somewhere. This adds a way to paste that whole list in at once instead of typing each track by hand.

**Problem**

Users building a playlist in the listen app have to add each track individually, which is slow when working from a tracklist they already have written down (15+ tracks).

**Proposed solution**

Add a "Paste tracklist" button to the playlist view. The button opens a dialog where users paste tabular text (from a notes app, a spreadsheet, or a webpage). The parser splits the text into rows and pre-populates a confirmation table where users review, edit, or delete rows before saving.

Behind feature flag `bulk_import_tracks`.

**Acceptance criteria**

* "Paste tracklist" button visible on the playlist view when the flag is on
* Pasting tabular text creates editable rows with title and artist pre-filled where detectable
* User can edit, add, or delete rows before saving
* Saving creates the tracks via the existing mutation flow
* Existing single-track entry continues to work unchanged

Shape 3 — User story

A user story captures a user need or product direction in plain language. It does not try to solve the problem technically — that happens later when a developer scopes it into a large feature. Create it as an issue in Backlog (state: "Backlog"; see task-tracker). When it's scoped, link it from the resulting parent issue.

What a user story is for

• Describing the problem from the user's perspective
• Exploring ideas and possible approaches without committing to one
• Capturing context that would otherwise live only in someone's head
• Creating a starting point that a developer can pick up and scope technically

What a user story is NOT

• A technical spec (no file paths, no architecture diagrams, no sub-tasks)
• A commitment to a specific implementation
• A spec that gets worked on directly — it spawns work (a parent issue + sub-issues), it doesn't become work

Description structure

**The user's problem**

[2–4 paragraphs in plain language. Who has this problem? What does their current experience look like? What's frustrating or broken about it? Write as if you're explaining to someone outside the team.]

**The internal problem**

[Optional. If there's an internal cost too — manual work, maintenance burden, workarounds. 1–3 paragraphs.]

**The opportunity**

[What would be different if this were solved? What does the ideal experience look like? 1–2 paragraphs.]

**Ideas and approaches**

[Explore possible solutions at a product level. What could the experience be? What are the tradeoffs between approaches? It's fine to list multiple options with pros/cons. This section is deliberately open — it gives the developer context for when they scope it technically.]

**User experience**

[Walk through what the user would see and do, step by step. Keep it concrete but don't prescribe UI specifics — describe the *flow*, not the *implementation*.]

**Scope**

[What's in scope for this story. What's deliberately out of scope and why — this prevents scope creep when someone picks it up.]

**Open questions**

[Things that need to be figured out during scoping. Better to list unknowns than to invent answers.]

**Future possibilities (out of scope)**

[Things that would be valuable later but are explicitly deferred. Useful context for the developer doing the scoping — they'll know what to design for without building it.]

Example — document ingestion for the til app

A Til-project issue in Backlog (see task-tracker for the create command), description:

**The user's problem**

People accumulate "today I learned" notes in all sorts of places — a notes app, a scratch markdown file, the back of a meeting doc. Right now, getting them into the til app means re-typing each entry by hand. For someone migrating a backlog of 40+ notes, this takes hours and introduces transcription errors.

Users have told us they sometimes don't bother capturing learnings at all because the friction of getting them in isn't worth it — the notes just stay scattered.

**The internal problem**

Every migration request becomes a manual cleanup job — pasting, reformatting, fixing tags. This doesn't scale as more people start using the app.

**The opportunity**

If users could paste or upload an existing document and have the individual notes extracted automatically (with a chance to review before saving), we'd remove the biggest friction point in adopting the app. Users would bring their whole backlog instead of starting from scratch.

**Ideas and approaches**

*Option A: Paste from clipboard.* User copies text from their notes app and pastes into a text area. We split on headings or blank lines. Simple, works for plain text, doesn't handle PDFs or rich formatting.

*Option B: File upload with AI extraction.* User uploads a markdown, PDF, or text file. An AI model extracts discrete notes and suggests tags. More powerful, handles more formats, but adds complexity and cost per extraction.

*Option C: Hybrid.* Start with paste-from-clipboard as the baseline. Add AI extraction for files as a second phase. This lets us ship something useful quickly and iterate.

The hybrid approach feels right — paste covers most cases (most people keep notes as plain text), and AI extraction can come later for the richer formats.

**User experience**

1. User is on the til list view
2. Clicks "Import notes"
3. Dialog opens with a paste area and (later) a file upload zone
4. User pastes their notes
5. Preview list shows extracted notes with title and suggested tags pre-filled
6. User reviews, edits, deletes, or adds notes
7. Clicks "Import" — notes are created

**Scope**

In scope: paste-from-clipboard extraction, preview and edit step, creating notes via existing mutations.

Out of scope: file upload, AI extraction, auto-tagging, duplicate detection. These are future enhancements.

**Open questions**

- What separators do we split on? Headings only, blank lines, or both?
- Should we try to auto-suggest tags from the note content, or leave that to the user?
- Do we preserve markdown formatting in the body, or strip to plain text?

**Future possibilities (out of scope)**

- AI extraction from PDFs and rich documents
- Auto-tagging based on note content
- Importing into other apps (journal, library) from the same flow

User story tips

• Write for a reader who doesn't know the codebase. Plain language throughout.
• The "Ideas and approaches" section is the most valuable part — it gives the developer options and tradeoffs to work with during scoping
• Don't force a single solution. If there are multiple good approaches, describe them all.
• Keep "Open questions" honest. Unanswered questions are better than assumed answers.

Shape 4 — Large feature (scoped)

A technically broken-down feature with sequenced sub-tasks. This is the output of scoping — usually produced when a developer takes a user story and works out the implementation. It is a parent issue in the app's project whose description carries the technical scope, with one sub-issue per sub-task (each with the parent set), and blocking relations for the dependency graph (which also encode the waves). See task-tracker for the create and relation commands.

When this shape is created

• A developer picks up a user story and scopes it technically
• The user and developer have a scoping conversation to break down the work
• Occasionally, for well-understood work, a large feature is created directly (no user story precursor needed)

Scoping conversation steps

1. Start from the user story. Read the user story issue. Understand the problem, the ideas explored, and the open questions.
2. Identify the architectural shape. What systems are touched? Frontend app, packages/core hooks, the Hasura layer, the sworld-backend Hono service? Is there an existing pattern to follow? For frontend work, frontend-ui-architecture decides where each piece lands (which package and folder), which shapes how a sub-task is scoped.
3. Resolve the open questions. The user story's open questions become decisions in the parent issue's description.
4. Write the goal & verification sub-issue first (see below) — before naming a single code sub-task. If you can't write a concrete walkthrough and "how to know it's done" list yet, the concept isn't settled enough to scope — go back to product-planning, don't invent sub-tasks around a fuzzy goal.
5. Break into sub-tasks by one-purpose, one-app/repo scope. Apply micro-prs' one-purpose test to each candidate before it becomes a sub-issue — split it now, at scoping time, not after the branch is built.
6. Derive the dependency graph from the code — run dependency-analysis over the candidates. It decides which are isolated and which carry a real blockedBy; this skill only records what it returns.
7. Group into waves only where step 6 found a real blocker, and render them per the templates below. If everything is parallel, skip waves and the dependency graph section entirely.
8. Map to the deployment model. Each sub-task must be small, independently mergeable, and revertible. Anything user-facing sits behind a feature flag until ready.
9. Confirm with the user before creating the parent issue and sub-issues. Show the proposed breakdown (flat list, or waves if any are real). Adjust until it's right.

Parent issue description structure

The parent issue holds the technical scope. It is not worked on directly — its sub-issues do the work. Set this as the parent issue description (and, for a heavy domain concept, also create a tracker document attached to the app's project — see product-planning and task-tracker).

**In plain words**  _(see `plain-english`)_

[2–4 sentences: what this feature lets a user do that they can't today, and why it matters — before any architecture appears.]

**Context**

[Link to the user story issue. 1–2 sentences summarising the user need this delivers on. Do not repeat the full user story — link to it.]

**Technical approach**

[The architectural decision. Why this approach over alternatives. Link to docs/documents that explain broader patterns if relevant (compute-on-read, deployment model).]

**[Domain-specific sections as needed]**

For features involving data models or complex logic, include sections like:
* GraphQL query / data model
* Domain knowledge (rules a developer needs)
* Return types / interfaces

**Estimation**

| | Hours |
|---|---|
| Sequential total | Xh |
| Parallel total (critical path) | Xh |

**Sub-tasks (N total)**

Flat by default — one table, no waves, when nothing has a real dependency (the common case, see "Sequencing examples" below):

| Sub-task | Work | Est |
|----------|------|-----|
| <title> | <description> | Xh |

Only when a real dependency exists, group into waves instead and add a **Dependency graph** section (a text diagram of what blocks what — see "Sequencing examples" below):

**Wave 0 — [Wave name]**

| Sub-task | Work | Est | Blocked by |
|----------|------|-----|------------|
| <title> | <description> | Xh | — |

**Wave 1 — [Wave name]**

[... same table format, blocked-by references earlier sub-tasks]

**Verification**

* [Type-check, tests, build]
* [Manual checks]
* [E2E tests]

**Existing code references**

| What | Path |
|------|------|
| Reference implementation | packages/core/src/library/query-hooks/currentReading.ts |

**Related**

* [link to the user story issue] — user story
* [Tracker document or external doc] — relevant patterns

Sub-task issue structure

Each sub-task is one sub-issue under the parent, and a small focused PR. It inherits context from the parent issue — do not repeat the architecture or rationale. Create each as a sub-issue under the parent, ready to pick up, with an estimate, then add a blocked-by relation for each dependency (see task-tracker for the commands).

**Why this matters**  _(one plain-language line — see `plain-english`)_

[One sentence, no jargon: what part of the user-facing feature this piece contributes to.]

**What**

[1–2 sentences describing the specific change.]

**Files / scope**

[Files or modules touched, in this ONE repo/app only — see `micro-prs`. If the list spans two apps or two repos, split the sub-task before creating it.]

**Acceptance criteria**

* [Concrete outcome]
* [Tests pass]
* [No regression on dependent code]

Before creating it, run micro-prs' one-purpose test against this sub-task's What and Files / scope. If it fails, it's two sub-tasks, not one. A common failure shape: a sub-task titled around one piece of work (e.g. "client factory") that quietly also adds an unrelated data-access module, unrelated constants, and a cleanup deletion — each of those is independently nameable in one sentence, which is the tell it should have been three or four sub-tasks instead of one.

The goal & verification sub-issue — every large feature's first sub-issue

Before any code sub-issue is created, write one sub-issue whose entire job is answering: "how does anyone — with zero context — know the whole feature works when every sub-issue is done?" Each sub-issue's own acceptance criteria only proves its own slice; nobody's acceptance criteria proves the assembled feature actually delivers the user story. This sub-issue is that missing check, written before the breakdown so it also doubles as a sanity check on the breakdown itself — if you can't write a concrete verification step, the shape probably isn't settled yet either.

Create it as the first sub-issue under the parent, ready to pick up, titled Goal & verification — <feature> (no blockedBy — nothing needs to finish before this is written, and every other sub-issue may link back to it). See task-tracker for the command:

**Why this matters**

This is the checklist for the whole feature, not one slice of it — read it before touching any of the other sub-issues, and use it to confirm the parent is actually done once they've all landed.

**Goal — what "done" looks like**

[Plain-English walkthrough of the feature end-to-end, written as if explaining to someone who has never seen this app. What can a user now do that they couldn't before? No jargon, no file paths — see `plain-english`.]

**User stories**

* As a <who>, I can <what>, so that <why>.
* [one per distinct user-facing capability the feature delivers]

**Full walkthrough — a fresh dev or non-technical tester can follow this with no other context**

1. [Concrete, click-by-click step]
2. [Concrete, click-by-click step]
3. ...
N. [The observable result that proves it worked]

**How to know the whole feature is done**

* [Observable outcome — something you can see, click, or check, not an implementation detail]
* [Observable outcome]
* ...

**Explicitly out of scope**

[What this feature deliberately does NOT do, so review doesn't drift into scope creep]

Mark it Done once the user confirms the walkthrough matches their intent — its own deliverable is the spec being right, not code. It then sits as the reference every other sub-issue links back to, and is the actual acceptance test for the parent issue once every sub-issue merges.

Sub-task titles

The parent issue gives the context, so the sub-task title can be short:

• Reading-stats aggregation in readingStats query-hook
• Compute total listening time in listen query-hook
• Types + helper for monthly finance comparison
• Hook wiring (useCurrentReading)

Do not prefix with [domain] or other tags — the parent issue already scopes the work.

Sequencing examples — flat by default, waves only when earned

Most breakdowns are a flat list — nothing here has a real dependency, so nothing gets a blockedBy:

No waves — all startable now:
  types-only             — new interfaces in packages/core, no implementation
  ui-shell               — empty dialog + button in apps/til, no wiring yet
  parser-helper          — pure text→notes parser in packages/core, unit-tested alone
  hasura-permissions     — read permission for the new table (sworld-hasura-v2, separate repo/PR)

A worked dependency graph for an Import notes parent issue where a real blocker exists (waves are encoded by blockedBy relations between sub-issues — imposed here only because dependency-analysis returned those edges as real):

Wave 0 — Foundations (no blockers):
  parser-helper          — pure text→notes parser in packages/core
  import-dialog-shell    — empty dialog + button in apps/til

Wave 1 — Preview:
  preview-table          — blockedBy: [parser-helper, import-dialog-shell]

Wave 2 — Save:
  save-wiring            — blockedBy: [preview-table]

Each issue's blockedBy lists the issues above it. A sub-task can be developed in parallel even when blocked — it just can't merge until its blockers are Done. Never write a blockedBy this skill worked out for itself: every edge comes from dependency-analysis (step 6 above), which owns the real-vs-fake test. This skill only records what it returns.

Process

When Claude has been working with the developer and a spec is needed:

1. Identify the shape — bug, small feature, user story, or large feature. Ask if unsure.
2. For user stories — focus on capturing the user's problem and ideas in plain language, as an issue in Backlog. Do not jump to technical scoping.
3. For large features — run the scoping conversation before creating anything, including the goal & verification sub-issue's content. Confirm the breakdown with the user. If there's an existing user story, start from it.
4. Draft the spec matching the shape's structure, applying plain-english to its opening block. Use the developer's existing context, do not re-investigate things already discussed.
5. Get explicit approval, then create in the tracker. Creating an issue is an external write — get the user's sign-off on the plan before creating anything, for every shape, not just large features (this mirrors the workspace's plan-before-code gate; the large-feature scoping conversation in step 3 already ends this way, and a bug / small feature / user story needs the same green light). Only then create (see task-tracker for every command) — one issue for a bug / small feature / user story; for a large feature: the parent (attached to the app's project), then the goal & verification sub-issue first, then one sub-issue per code sub-task with parent, project, and estimate set, plus a blocked-by relation only where step 6 of the scoping conversation found a real dependency. For a heavy domain concept, add a tracker document attached to the app's project.
6. Confirm to the user what was created, with the issue identifiers and URLs.

Validation checklist

Before creating a spec:

• Title is specific; no square-bracket prefixes
• Attached to the right app project (see task-tracker)
• Shape matches the work (bug / small feature / user story / large feature)
• Detail level matches the shape — not over-documented, not under-documented
• Opens with the plain-english block (**In plain words**, **Why this matters**, or the user story's own opening section) — no exceptions
• Tracker fields set: state, plus estimate / label / parent / blocked-by relations where relevant (see task-tracker)
• For bugs: bug label; problem, root cause (or note that it's unknown), solution (if known), acceptance criteria
• For small features: problem, proposed solution, acceptance criteria
• For user stories: state: Backlog, user problem front and centre, ideas explored but no technical spec, open questions listed honestly
• For large features: scoping conversation done, goal & verification sub-issue created first, every code sub-task passes the one-purpose test (micro-prs) and stays inside one app/repo, blockedBy wiring reflects only real dependencies (flat list is the default, not a gap), links back to the user story issue if one exists
• UK English throughout
• No AI attribution

Internal-only refactors (type fixes, performance, cleanup users won't feel) don't need a spec note about visibility; user-facing changes should say so in the spec.