spec

---

name: spec owner: baseline description: Draft a Workflow Phase 4 technical spec from an intake (and optionally a BRD + scout + research memo). The spec defines how the system will change: design (C4 + UML + dependency graph in PlantUML), data, APIs, tests, rollout, rollback. Output lives at docs/specs/<slug>.md. Never self-approves — approval happens via /approve-spec.

Spec — Workflow Phase 4

You are drafting a technical spec. The spec answers "how" — what changes, in which files, behind which flags, with which tests and rollout. It is the document a different engineer can pick up tomorrow and build from.

The spec is diagram-driven: C4 + UML + a dependency graph in PlantUML, tables for contracts and traceability, prose only for what a diagram cannot say. Three hooks enforce this at the Write boundary:

• artifact_template_guard — required ## headings present.
• spec_diagram_presence_guard — required diagram kinds present inside plantuml fences.
• plantuml_syntax_guard — every plantuml fence parses.

Prerequisite

Per .claude/state/workflow.json, research must be in completed OR in exceptions (quickfixes and some bugfixes skip research). The track_guard hook enforces this at Write time, but verify upfront so you can stop with a clear message rather than hitting the guard.

Inputs

• Required: the intake at docs/intake/<slug>.md (or the bugfix description if entry was /triage → spec).
• Optional: BRD at docs/brd/<slug>.md, scout report at docs/scout/<slug>.md, research memo at docs/research/<slug>.md.
• template.md in this skill directory — the canonical structure.

Steps

0.5 Brainstorm gate (Step 0.5 per CLAUDE.md Article X.3). Read .claude/state/workflow.json and apply read-time defaults via .claude/skills/brainstorm/workflow-defaults.mjs → withDefaults. If skip_brainstorm is false (or absent — defaults to false) AND track_id is spec-entry, invoke Skill(brainstorm, {request, slug, calling_phase: "spec"}) before reading inputs. On intake-full tracks the brainstorm gate already fired at /intake Step 1.5; the brief at docs/brief/<slug>.md is already present and /spec reads it as an additional input. If skip_brainstorm is true, skip this gate and proceed.

1. Read all available upstream artifacts (intake, brd, scout, research, and the brainstorm brief when present). Note the acceptance-criterion IDs from the intake/BRD — the spec's AC table must either reuse those IDs or trace to them explicitly. 1.5 Codesign mode (Step 1.5 per CLAUDE.md Article X.4). Read workflow.json → codesign_mode (with workflow-defaults.mjs applied — default false). If codesign_mode is false, skip Step 1.5 entirely and proceed to Step 2 — the codesign-off path is byte-equivalent to the pre-feature /spec so opting out restores prior behavior. If codesign_mode is true: (a) identify load-bearing technical decision points via .claude/skills/spec/decision-finder.mjs → findDecisionPoints({researchMemo, scoutReport}); (b) for each decision, present Claude's recommended option + rationale + AskUserQuestion (Approve / Suggest alternative / Discuss tradeoff); (c) when the engineer suggests an alternative, capture verbatim rationale via a free-form turn and persist to .claude/state/codesign/<slug>.json via .claude/skills/spec/codesign-state.mjs; (d) render the ## Decisions section into the spec via .claude/skills/spec/decisions-writer.mjs → writeDecisionsSection(decisions). Engineer verbatim becomes canonical — the chosen option recorded is the engineer's pick when they override, not Claude's recommendation. The ## Decisions section appears near the top of the spec, before the existing ## Design section. 1.6 Epic sliced-spec mode (track_id epic, seed.md §18.9). When workflow.json → track_id is epic, read .claude/state/epic/<slug>.json → slices[]. The spec SHALL carry one ## Slice <id> section per slice (heading anchor slice-<id>, matching the #slice-<id> fragment children pin), and each AC in the spec's AC table SHALL be assigned to exactly one slice (group the ## Slice <id> section's ACs to match that slice's acs). A slice section names the slice's behavior, its ACs, and its write surface — it is the contract an epic-child reads in isolation, so it must stand on its own without the reader needing sibling slices. The single /approve-spec covers every slice; never split approval per slice. On non-epic tracks, skip this step (no slice sections).
2. Read template.md. Every ## heading must appear in the output; every required diagram kind (C4 Context/Container/Component, class, sequence, dependency graph) must appear inside a plantuml fence.
3. Draft each diagram first, then the surrounding table/prose. If you cannot draw a diagram, you do not understand that part of the design yet — record it under Open questions rather than faking prose.
4. Confirm every third-party API cited (in the Libraries table, Contracts rows, or diagram labels) via the context7 MCP. Record the library version. Never recall an API from training data.
5. Verify each AC-NNN row points to a real §Behavior #N anchor, and that the corresponding sequence diagram actually defines the promised behaviour.
6. Run /spec-lint <slug> before saving if you want to preview what the guards will report — same checks, not enforced.
7. Write to docs/specs/<slug>.md.
8. NEVER write Status: Approved, Approved: true, or any variation. The spec_approval_guard blocks self-approval. Approval is the token written by /approve-spec to .claude/state/spec_approvals/<slug>.approval.
9. Append "spec" to .claude/state/workflow.json → completed.
10. Tell the user: "Spec drafted at docs/specs/<slug>.md. Render diagrams with /spec-render <slug>, review, then /approve-spec <slug> (or pass the full path). After approval, /tdd."

Diagram rules (non-negotiable)

• Renderable PlantUML only. Every fence must validate — broken diagrams are worse than missing ones because they waste reviewer time. Test locally with plantuml -checkonly -pipe or the plantuml MCP server.
• C4 uses the stdlib includes: !include <C4/C4_Context>, !include <C4/C4_Container>, !include <C4/C4_Component>. No remote URL includes — they break offline review.
• One sequence per AC. The sequence is the contract; prose descriptions of behaviour are forbidden. If an AC spans multiple interactions, use == dividers inside one sequence diagram rather than splitting into two.
• Dependency graph is directed and acyclic. A --> B means "A depends on B". Cycles mean the design has a deadlock risk — surface under Open questions, don't draw the cycle.
• Class diagram mirrors the migration DDL. Every <<new>> / <<changed>> field must have a matching ALTER in the DDL block. If the DDL changes, update the class diagram in the same edit.

Drafting rules (from seed.md § Code Standards)

• No stubs — EVER. If the spec declares a function or endpoint, define its contract fully: inputs, outputs, errors, idempotency, side effects, ownership. If you can't, do not declare it — flag it as an Open question.
• YAGNI. The spec describes what is built now. A "future option" with no current test driving it does not belong here.
• Context7 for every library API. API shape confirmed via the context7 MCP, not training recall. Record the library version.
• Acceptance criteria are testable. Numbered, concrete, traced. "Users can retry" is not an AC; "on 5xx from upstream, worker retries with 100/200/400 ms backoff, max 3 tries, then dead-letters" is.
• Rollout and rollback are named, not 'standard.' Which flag? Which kill-switch? Which metric + threshold + window detects a bad rollout within 5 minutes?

Archive planning

The spec template includes an Archive plan section. Its purpose is to document at drafting time which artifacts ship together when this work lands. For 90% of specs the default bundle (every file named <slug>.* in the workflow directories) is exactly right — leave the "Extras" list as (none). Only populate it if this work produces a one-off file that isn't slug-named but belongs with the bundle (e.g., a migration script kept for reference, a runbook).

The archive skill (Phase 10.5) reads the slug convention automatically; the human-authored "Extras" list is an advisory — surface it to the reviewer so the bundle is transparent before approval.

Common failure modes (don't)

• Restating the intake verbatim — the spec earns its keep by adding design, not by re-narrating requirements.
• Writing behavior as prose ("we'll retry on 5xx") — draw the sequence.
• A C4_Container diagram that invents containers not in any code path — if it isn't deployable today, it belongs in a future-work spec.
• An AC row whose §Behavior #N anchor resolves to an empty section.
• Hiding open questions in body prose — surface them under Open questions so the reviewer (and /approve-spec gate) sees them.
• Pre-optimizing — if profiling hasn't run, a performance plan is speculation.