spec-updating

name	spec-updating
description	Spec update workflow with discovery, drafting, external review gates (Codex + Gemini), and integration phases. Use when adding, modifying, or extending specification documents. Specs are truth — code implements specs, never the reverse.
disable-model-invocation	false

Spec-Updating Protocol

Use when: Adding, modifying, or extending specification documents.

Core Principle

Specs are truth. Code implements specs. Never the reverse.

If you're about to write code that should be spec-backed, STOP and update the spec first.

Protocol Phases

Phase 1: Discovery

Before writing anything, understand what exists.

Subagent dispatch:

Task: Find all specs related to {feature}
- Search the spec directory for mentions of {keywords}
- List cross-references that might need updating
- Identify which spec file(s) should be modified
Output: reports/spec-discovery-{feature}.md

Gate: Must complete discovery before drafting.

Phase 2: Draft

Write spec changes to a draft file, NOT directly to the spec directory.

Location: prompts/spec-draft-{feature}.md

Draft template:

# Spec Draft: {Feature Name}

## Target File
{path to spec file}

## Section to Add/Modify
{section name}

## Proposed Content
{actual spec content - written as if it were in the spec}

## Cross-References
- {list of other specs that reference or are referenced by this}

## Open Questions
- {any unresolved design questions}

Gate: Draft must be complete before review.

Phase 3: Codex Review Gate

External review by Codex CLI.

Prompt file: prompts/review-spec-{feature}.md

# Review Task: Spec Draft for {Feature}

## Files to Read
- `prompts/spec-draft-{feature}.md` - The draft to review
- `{path to existing spec}` - The existing spec
- {any related specs from discovery}

## Review Criteria
1. Does the draft follow existing spec conventions?
2. Is it consistent with related specs?
3. Are cross-references correct?
4. Is terminology consistent?
5. Are there any contradictions with existing content?

## Output
Write review to `reports/codex-spec-review-{feature}.md`
Include: APPROVE, CONCERNS, or REJECT with explanation

Command:

codex exec --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox \
  "Read prompts/review-spec-{feature}.md and follow its instructions"

Gate: Must be APPROVE or CONCERNS addressed before proceeding.

Phase 4: Gemini Review Gate

Second opinion from Gemini CLI.

Use same prompt file or create variant.

Command:

gemini --yolo "Read prompts/review-spec-{feature}.md and follow its instructions. Write to reports/gemini-spec-review-{feature}.md"

Gate: Must be APPROVE or CONCERNS addressed before proceeding.

Phase 5: Integration

Merge the draft into the actual spec file.

Actions:

1. Read current spec file
2. Find insertion/modification point
3. Apply changes from draft
4. Update any cross-references in other specs
5. Update glossary if new terms introduced

Verification:

• Spec file renders correctly (no broken markdown)
• Cross-reference links work
• No duplicate section headers

Phase 6: Verification

Final verification that spec integrates properly.

Subagent dispatch:

Task: Verify spec integration for {feature}
- Check spec file renders correctly
- Verify cross-references resolve
- Check glossary has all new terms
- Verify no conflicts with project principles
Output: reports/spec-verification-{feature}.md

Gate: Must pass before implementation begins.

---

Anti-Patterns

Wrong	Right
Edit spec directly without review	Draft -> Review -> Merge
Skip discovery phase	Always discover related specs first
Implement then spec	Spec then implement
Single reviewer	Codex AND Gemini review
Inline draft in chat	Physical draft file

Checklist

• Discovery complete, related specs identified
• Draft written to prompts/spec-draft-{feature}.md
• Codex review passed or concerns addressed
• Gemini review passed or concerns addressed
• Draft merged to spec directory
• Cross-references updated
• Glossary updated (if needed)
• Verification passed