speckit-specify

name	speckit-specify
description	Wrap core specification with spec-only requirement ownership.
compatibility	Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory
metadata	{"author":"github-spec-kit","source":"workflow-preset:commands/speckit.specify.md"}

Spec-Only Requirement Policy

This wrapper must not redefine core-owned User Input, Pre-Execution Checks, extension hooks, base path resolution, or core file handling.

Preset-added requirement output writes only spec.md. Product requirements stay in spec.md: user stories, acceptance criteria, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, constraints, assumptions, and any clarification markers required by the core template.

Keep requirement text implementation-agnostic and scoped to product behavior. Non-functional requirements must be explicit product-level assumptions or constraints, including no-special-requirement or not-applicable statements when that is the confirmed requirement.

Wrapper Input Additions

Treat product notes, PRDs, user prompts, design evidence, provider source packets, screenshots, visual proof, and source refs as input to the same feature description. If the core feature description is empty, follow the core command error path.

Wrapper Preflight Additions

Before writing design-derived requirements, check whether provider evidence is ready. This preset consumes qualified provider evidence; it does not call Figma MCP and does not generate provider artifact instances.

For Figma-derived evidence, require a ready Figma Evidence Packet and Figma provider source readiness contract: raw metadata completeness, metadata index completeness proof, node inventory parity, and no blocker lint errors. If evidence is not ready, write explicit non-design requirements only and record Provider evidence readiness blockers as [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE]; provider blockers must not become product [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] items.

Wrapper Outline Additions

Design Requirement Input Policy: run specification as staged intake and merge work without changing this command's write scope:

Stage 0: Product Requirement Intake

Product intake input: PRD, user prompt, product notes, and explicit product constraints. Product intake output: product-owned requirement facts in spec.md, including stories, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, assumptions, and product [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers.

Stage 1: Design Requirement Intake

Design intake input: provider-neutral design evidence, provider source packets, screenshots, visual proof, and source refs. Design intake output: evidence-backed design facts recorded only in spec.md, including stable Visual Item ID trace refs, observed variant/state facts, and Client Asset Contract facts: source refs, asset source strategy, required variants, fallback policy, and blocker status.

If the design source is a Figma URL and a ready packet is supplied by a runtime agent or external Figma intake that has Figma MCP access:

• Require a ready Figma Evidence Packet before writing design-derived requirements.
• Use the Figma provider source readiness contract; the preset defines the required design intake and provider readiness artifact structure and ready gate.
• Treat the runtime agent or external Figma intake as the source of artifact instances; this command consumes qualified evidence, does not call Figma MCP, and does not generate the artifact instances.
• If the packet is not ready, do not write design-derived requirements from that evidence. Write only explicit non-design requirements and record Provider evidence readiness blockers as [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE].

Use Observed from Figma as design evidence. Treat Inferred from Structure, Missing / Needs Clarification, and Out of Scope as interpretation, unresolved requirements, and excluded evidence respectively. Screenshots support visual facts only; screenshots must not create product semantics. Screenshot-implied business rules stay [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]. Do not invent code props, code state names, component reuse decisions, self-drawing bans, or copy restrictions from Figma structure. Record component use, no-self-draw, and no-new-copy constraints only when product input or qualified provider evidence states them explicitly.

If Figma MCP access is unavailable, Continue to write only spec.md and record [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE] for the missing Figma Evidence Packet, screenshots, or design facts.

Stage 2: Requirement Merge

Merge input: product facts from Stage 0 plus qualified design facts from Stage 1. Merge output: confirmed baseline requirements, conflicts, assumptions, clarification markers, and provider blockers recorded in spec.md. Apply Design Requirement Promotion Rules: promote only evidence-backed visual, layout, state, interaction, responsive, accessibility, and acceptance facts with source refs; preserve Visual Item ID trace refs for visual requirements. Product semantics implied only by provider evidence stay [NEEDS CLARIFICATION].

Stage 3: Generate baseline spec.md

Baseline spec output: one implementation-agnostic spec.md contract containing confirmed product requirements, qualified design-derived requirements, source refs, [NEEDS CLARIFICATION], and [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE] items.

Official Style Alignment

Focus on WHAT users need and WHY. Avoid HOW to implement. Limit [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers to the highest-impact unresolved product decisions; record low-impact gaps in Assumptions and provider readiness gaps as [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE].

Specification Quality Validation

Validate that requirement text is stakeholder-readable, testable, implementation-agnostic, and explicit about assumptions, NFR applicability, visual evidence source refs, provider blockers, and unresolved product decisions.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Pre-Execution Checks

Check for extension hooks (before specification):

• Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.
• If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.before_specify key
• If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
• Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false. Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default.
• For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions:
  • If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
  • If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
• For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag:
  • Optional hook (optional: true):

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension}
    Command: `/{command}`
    Description: {description}
    
    Prompt: {prompt}
    To execute: `/{command}`
    

  • Mandatory hook (optional: false):

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension}
    Executing: `/{command}`
    EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}
    
    Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline.
    

    After emitting the block above you MUST actually invoke the hook and wait for it to finish before continuing. Run it the same way you would run the command yourself in this agent/session (the invocation may differ from the literal {command} id shown above, e.g. a skills-mode agent runs it as /skill:speckit-... or $speckit-...). Emitting the block alone does not run the hook.
• If no hooks are registered or .specify/extensions.yml does not exist, skip silently

Outline

The text the user typed after /speckit-specify in the triggering message is the feature description. Assume you always have it available in this conversation even if $ARGUMENTS appears literally below. Do not ask the user to repeat it unless they provided an empty command.

Given that feature description, do this:

1. Generate a concise short name (2-4 words) for the feature:

   • Analyze the feature description and extract the most meaningful keywords
   • Create a 2-4 word short name that captures the essence of the feature
   • Use action-noun format when possible (e.g., "add-user-auth", "fix-payment-bug")
   • Preserve technical terms and acronyms (OAuth2, API, JWT, etc.)
   • Keep it concise but descriptive enough to understand the feature at a glance
   • Examples:
     • "I want to add user authentication" → "user-auth"
     • "Implement OAuth2 integration for the API" → "oauth2-api-integration"
     • "Create a dashboard for analytics" → "analytics-dashboard"
     • "Fix payment processing timeout bug" → "fix-payment-timeout"

2. Branch creation (optional, via hook):

   If a before_specify hook ran successfully in the Pre-Execution Checks above, it will have created/switched to a git branch and output JSON containing BRANCH_NAME and FEATURE_NUM. Note these values for reference, but the branch name does not dictate the spec directory name.

   If the user explicitly provided GIT_BRANCH_NAME, pass it through to the hook so the branch script uses the exact value as the branch name (bypassing all prefix/suffix generation).

3. Create the spec feature directory:

   Specs live under the default specs/ directory unless the user explicitly provides SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY.

   Resolution order for SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY:

   1. If the user explicitly provided SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY (e.g., via environment variable, argument, or configuration), use it as-is
   2. Otherwise, auto-generate it under specs/:
      • Check .specify/init-options.json for feature_numbering (preferred) or branch_numbering (deprecated, migration only — will be removed in a future release)
      • If "timestamp": prefix is YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS (current timestamp)
      • If "sequential" or absent: prefix is NNN (next available 3-digit number after scanning existing directories in specs/)
      • Construct the directory name: <prefix>-<short-name> (e.g., 003-user-auth or 20260319-143022-user-auth)
      • Set SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY to specs/<directory-name>
      • If branch_numbering was used (and feature_numbering was absent), emit a one-line warning: "⚠️ branch_numbering in init-options.json is deprecated. Rename to feature_numbering."

   Create the directory and spec file:

   • mkdir -p SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY
   • Resolve the active spec-template through the Spec Kit preset/template resolution stack (equivalent to specify preset resolve spec-template)
   • Copy the resolved spec-template file to SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/spec.md as the starting point
   • Set SPEC_FILE to SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/spec.md
   • Persist the resolved path to .specify/feature.json:

     {
       "feature_directory": "<resolved feature dir>"
     }
     

     Write the actual resolved directory path value (for example, specs/003-user-auth), not the literal string SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY. This allows downstream commands (/speckit-plan, /speckit-tasks, etc.) to locate the feature directory without relying on git branch name conventions.

   IMPORTANT:

   • You must only create one feature per /speckit-specify invocation
   • The spec directory name and the git branch name are independent — they may be the same but that is the user's choice
   • The spec directory and file are always created by this command, never by the hook

4. Load the resolved active spec-template file to understand required sections.

5. IF EXISTS: Load .specify/memory/constitution.md for project principles and governance constraints.

6. Follow this execution flow:

   1. Parse user description from arguments If empty: ERROR "No feature description provided"
   2. Extract key concepts from description Identify: actors, actions, data, constraints
   3. For unclear aspects:
      • Make informed guesses based on context and industry standards
      • Only mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] if:
        • The choice significantly impacts feature scope or user experience
        • Multiple reasonable interpretations exist with different implications
        • No reasonable default exists
      • LIMIT: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers total
      • Prioritize clarifications by impact: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details
   4. Fill User Scenarios & Testing section If no clear user flow: ERROR "Cannot determine user scenarios"
   5. Generate Functional Requirements Each requirement must be testable Use reasonable defaults for unspecified details (document assumptions in Assumptions section)
   6. Define Success Criteria Create measurable, technology-agnostic outcomes Include both quantitative metrics (time, performance, volume) and qualitative measures (user satisfaction, task completion) Each criterion must be verifiable without implementation details
   7. Identify Key Entities (if data involved)
   8. Return: SUCCESS (spec ready for planning)

7. Write the specification to SPEC_FILE using the template structure, replacing placeholders with concrete details derived from the feature description (arguments) while preserving section order and headings.

8. Specification Quality Validation: After writing the initial spec, validate it against quality criteria:

   a. Create Spec Quality Checklist: Generate a checklist file at SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY/checklists/requirements.md using the checklist template structure with these validation items:

   # Specification Quality Checklist: [FEATURE NAME]
   
   **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
   **Created**: [DATE]
   **Feature**: [Link to spec.md]
   
   ## Content Quality
   
   - [ ] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
   - [ ] Focused on user value and business needs
   - [ ] Written for non-technical stakeholders
   - [ ] All mandatory sections completed
   
   ## Requirement Completeness
   
   - [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
   - [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
   - [ ] Success criteria are measurable
   - [ ] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
   - [ ] All acceptance scenarios are defined
   - [ ] Edge cases are identified
   - [ ] Scope is clearly bounded
   - [ ] Dependencies and assumptions identified
   
   ## Feature Readiness
   
   - [ ] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
   - [ ] User scenarios cover primary flows
   - [ ] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
   - [ ] No implementation details leak into specification
   
   ## Notes
   
   - Items marked incomplete require spec updates before `/speckit-clarify` or `/speckit-plan`
   

   b. Run Validation Check: Review the spec against each checklist item:

   • For each item, determine if it passes or fails
   • Document specific issues found (quote relevant spec sections)

   c. Handle Validation Results:

   • If all items pass: Mark checklist complete and proceed to the Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks section

   • If items fail (excluding [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]):

     1. List the failing items and specific issues
     2. Update the spec to address each issue
     3. Re-run validation until all items pass (max 3 iterations)
     4. If still failing after 3 iterations, document remaining issues in checklist notes and warn user

   • If [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain:

     1. Extract all [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] markers from the spec

     2. LIMIT CHECK: If more than 3 markers exist, keep only the 3 most critical (by scope/security/UX impact) and make informed guesses for the rest

     3. For each clarification needed (max 3), present options to user in this format:

        ## Question [N]: [Topic]
        
        **Context**: [Quote relevant spec section]
        
        **What we need to know**: [Specific question from NEEDS CLARIFICATION marker]
        
        **Suggested Answers**:
        
        | Option | Answer | Implications |
        |--------|--------|--------------|
        | A      | [First suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |
        | B      | [Second suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |
        | C      | [Third suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |
        | Custom | Provide your own answer | [Explain how to provide custom input] |
        
        **Your choice**: _[Wait for user response]_
        

     4. CRITICAL - Table Formatting: Ensure markdown tables are properly formatted:

        • Use consistent spacing with pipes aligned
        • Each cell should have spaces around content: | Content | not |Content|
        • Header separator must have at least 3 dashes: |--------|
        • Test that the table renders correctly in markdown preview

     5. Number questions sequentially (Q1, Q2, Q3 - max 3 total)

     6. Present all questions together before waiting for responses

     7. Wait for user to respond with their choices for all questions (e.g., "Q1: A, Q2: Custom - [details], Q3: B")

     8. Update the spec by replacing each [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker with the user's selected or provided answer

     9. Re-run validation after all clarifications are resolved

   d. Update Checklist: After each validation iteration, update the checklist file with current pass/fail status

Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks

You MUST complete this section before reporting completion to the user.

Check if .specify/extensions.yml exists in the project root.

• If it does not exist, or no hooks are registered under hooks.after_specify, skip to the Completion Report.
• If it exists, read it and look for entries under the hooks.after_specify key.
• If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue to the Completion Report.
• Filter out hooks where enabled is explicitly false. Treat hooks without an enabled field as enabled by default.
• For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook condition expressions:
  • If the hook has no condition field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable
  • If the hook defines a non-empty condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
• For each executable hook, output the following based on its optional flag:
  • Mandatory hook (optional: false) — You MUST emit EXECUTE_COMMAND: for each mandatory hook:

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Automatic Hook**: {extension}
    Executing: `/{command}`
    EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}
    

    After emitting the block above you MUST actually invoke the hook and wait for it to finish before continuing. Run it the same way you would run the command yourself in this agent/session (the invocation may differ from the literal {command} id shown above, e.g. a skills-mode agent runs it as /skill:speckit-... or $speckit-...). Emitting the block alone does not run the hook.
  • Optional hook (optional: true):

    ## Extension Hooks
    
    **Optional Hook**: {extension}
    Command: `/{command}`
    Description: {description}
    
    Prompt: {prompt}
    To execute: `/{command}`
    

Completion Report

Report completion to the user with:

• SPECIFY_FEATURE_DIRECTORY — the feature directory path
• SPEC_FILE — the spec file path
• Checklist results summary
• Readiness for the next phase (/speckit-clarify or /speckit-plan)

NOTE: Branch creation is handled by the before_specify hook (git extension). Spec directory and file creation are always handled by this core command.

Quick Guidelines

• Focus on WHAT users need and WHY.
• Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure).
• Written for business stakeholders, not developers.
• DO NOT create any checklists that are embedded in the spec. That will be a separate command.

Section Requirements

• Mandatory sections: Must be completed for every feature
• Optional sections: Include only when relevant to the feature
• When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as "N/A")

For AI Generation

When creating this spec from a user prompt:

1. Make informed guesses: Use context, industry standards, and common patterns to fill gaps
2. Document assumptions: Record reasonable defaults in the Assumptions section
3. Limit clarifications: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers - use only for critical decisions that:
   • Significantly impact feature scope or user experience
   • Have multiple reasonable interpretations with different implications
   • Lack any reasonable default
4. Prioritize clarifications: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details
5. Think like a tester: Every vague requirement should fail the "testable and unambiguous" checklist item
6. Common areas needing clarification (only if no reasonable default exists):
   • Feature scope and boundaries (include/exclude specific use cases)
   • User types and permissions (if multiple conflicting interpretations possible)
   • Security/compliance requirements (when legally/financially significant)

Examples of reasonable defaults (don't ask about these):

• Data retention: Industry-standard practices for the domain
• Performance targets: Standard web/mobile app expectations unless specified
• Error handling: User-friendly messages with appropriate fallbacks
• Authentication method: Standard session-based or OAuth2 for web apps
• Integration patterns: Use project-appropriate patterns (REST/GraphQL for web services, function calls for libraries, CLI args for tools, etc.)

Success Criteria Guidelines

Success criteria must be:

1. Measurable: Include specific metrics (time, percentage, count, rate)
2. Technology-agnostic: No mention of frameworks, languages, databases, or tools
3. User-focused: Describe outcomes from user/business perspective, not system internals
4. Verifiable: Can be tested/validated without knowing implementation details

Good examples:

• "Users can complete checkout in under 3 minutes"
• "System supports 10,000 concurrent users"
• "95% of searches return results in under 1 second"
• "Task completion rate improves by 40%"

Bad examples (implementation-focused):

• "API response time is under 200ms" (too technical, use "Users see results instantly")
• "Database can handle 1000 TPS" (implementation detail, use user-facing metric)
• "React components render efficiently" (framework-specific)
• "Redis cache hit rate above 80%" (technology-specific)

Done When

• Specification written to SPEC_FILE and validated against quality checklist
• Extension hooks dispatched or skipped according to the rules in Mandatory Post-Execution Hooks above
• Completion reported to user with feature directory, spec file path, and checklist results

Completion Report

Before finishing, provide a stage-wise report and report the spec.md sections created or updated, confirmed requirements, provider blockers, and unresolved requirement ambiguities.

Done When

• Stage 0-3 intake and merge decisions are reflected in spec.md.
• Product [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers are limited to high-impact unresolved decisions.
• Provider readiness blockers remain [BLOCKED: PROVIDER_EVIDENCE].
• Completion reported with updated spec.md sections and remaining blockers.