メニュー
How to write a natural language specification that Builder can implement without asking questions.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Complete reference for the factory CLI — all commands, arguments, options, and usage. Use when an agent needs to invoke factory commands, check correct syntax, or understand available options.
When and how to write a human-action-needed entry to memory/{agent}/needs.md. Agents write these entries when they hit blockers that only a human can resolve.
When you encounter a failure, correction, or new pattern, write a learning and optionally propose a skill.
How the factory workspace is organized and what each directory means.
What to examine during a reflection pass and how to write observations to memory/{agent}/needs.md.
When and how to write scenario holdouts for factory verification.
| name | nlspec-format |
| description | How to write a natural language specification that Builder can implement without asking questions. |
What this project/feature is and why it exists. Written for a human who might read this in 6 months.
What the system DOES, described as observable behaviors. Not implementation details. Format: "When [trigger], the system [behavior], resulting in [observable outcome]."
Every point where the system touches the outside world:
What the system must NOT do. Error cases. Security boundaries. Performance requirements. Be explicit about edge cases — these are where Builder most often goes wrong.
Explicitly state what this spec does NOT cover. This prevents Builder from gold-plating.
How Verifier should know this works. Not test cases (those are holdout scenarios), but observable properties: "A user should be able to [action] and see [result]."
When a spec has open questions that block promotion to specs/ready/, write them as structured entries. Each ambiguity must be tagged for the kernel's Decision Monitor to classify and route:
### 7.N {short-description}
- reversibility: high | low
- impact: governance | implementation | cosmetic
- status: open
**Options:**
- **(a)** {option description}
- **(b)** {option description}
**Recommendation:** {your recommendation, if any}
The kernel reads these tags after the spec run:
reversibility: high + impact: implementation|cosmetic → auto-resolved (soft gate)reversibility: low OR impact: governance → blocks for operator (hard gate)Do not write ambiguities as unstructured prose. The structured format is what makes the Decision Monitor work.
A spec is ready when you can hand it to a competent developer who has never heard of this project and they can build it without asking a single question. If they'd need to ask, the spec is underspecified.
Before speccing anything non-trivial, write a research request: "I need to spec a system that does X. What are the established approaches? What are the key design decisions?" Wait for the brief. Then spec with informed constraints.