reverse-engineering-specs

name	reverse-engineering-specs
description	Use when onboarding to an existing codebase that lacks specifications — exhaustively traces code paths and produces implementation-free behavioral specifications for safe refactoring, feature addition, or legacy modernization

Reverse Engineering Specifications

Overview

For brownfield/legacy projects without documentation, this skill generates implementation-free specifications by exhaustively analyzing existing code. The output is a complete behavioral description that drives autonomous development on top of the existing codebase — enabling safe refactoring, feature addition, and modernization.

Key principle: Document actual behavior, including bugs. Bugs are "documented features" until explicitly marked for fixing.

This is a RIGID skill. Every code path must be traced. No assumptions, no skipping.

Phase 1: Exhaustive Code Investigation

[HARD-GATE] Every code path must be traced. No assumptions, no skipping.

Deploy parallel subagents via the Agent tool (up to 500, with subagent_type="Explore") to analyze:

Analysis Target	What to Document	Priority
Entry points	All ways the system can be invoked (HTTP, CLI, events, cron)	P0
Code paths	Every branch, loop, conditional, early return	P0
Data flows	Input → transformation → output for every pipeline	P0
State mutations	Every place state is read, written, or deleted	P0
Error handling	Try/catch blocks, error codes, fallback behaviors	P0
Side effects	External calls, file I/O, database writes, event emissions	P1
Configuration	Environment variables, config files, feature flags	P1
Dependencies	External services, libraries, APIs consumed	P1
Concurrency	Async operations, race conditions, locking mechanisms	P2
Implicit behavior	Convention-based routing, middleware chains, decorators	P2

Investigation Strategy Decision Table

Codebase Size	Strategy	Subagent Count
Small (<50 files)	Single-pass full scan	5-10
Medium (50-500 files)	Module-by-module scan	50-100
Large (500+ files)	Entry-point-first, then depth scan	200-500

STOP after investigation — present a summary of discovered entry points, data flows, and behaviors. Get confirmation before generating specs.

Phase 2: Behavioral Specification Generation

Transform code analysis into implementation-free specs following the spec-writing skill format.

Transformation Rules

Rule	Explanation
Strip ALL implementation details	No function names, variable names, technology references
Describe WHAT, never HOW	Observable behavior only
Document actual behavior (bugs included)	Bugs become "current behavior" in specs
Use Given/When/Then format	For all acceptance criteria
Include data contracts	Input shapes, output shapes, invariants
Separate known issues	Bugs go in KNOWN_ISSUES.md, not inline

Implementation Detail Stripping

Code Artifact	What You See	What You Write in Spec
jwt.verify(token, secret)	Token validation with JWT	"Credentials are validated against the authentication system"
redis.get(cacheKey)	Redis cache lookup	"Previously computed results are retrieved from cache"
if (user.role === 'admin')	Role check	"Privileged operations require administrator access"
res.status(429).json(...)	Rate limiting response	"Excessive requests receive a rate limit error"
bcrypt.hash(pw, 12)	Password hashing	"Passwords are stored in a non-reversible format"

STOP after spec generation — run the completeness checklist before organizing.

Phase 3: Specification Organization

Create spec files following the naming convention:

specs/
├── 01-[first-capability].md
├── 02-[second-capability].md
├── ...
├── NN-[last-capability].md
└── KNOWN_ISSUES.md

KNOWN_ISSUES.md Format

# Known Issues

## [Issue Title]
- **Current behavior:** [What actually happens]
- **Expected behavior:** [What should happen, if known]
- **Affected specs:** [Which spec files reference this behavior]
- **Severity:** [Critical | High | Medium | Low]
- **Notes:** [Additional context]

Severity Classification

Severity	Criteria	Action
Critical	Data loss, security vulnerability, system crash	Fix before any new features
High	Incorrect results, broken workflow	Fix in next release
Medium	Poor UX, performance issue	Plan for future fix
Low	Cosmetic, minor inconsistency	Fix opportunistically

STOP after organization — present the spec file list and KNOWN_ISSUES for review.

Phase 4: Quality Verification

[HARD-GATE] All checks must pass before this phase is complete.

#	Check	Question	Status
1	Entry points	Are ALL entry points documented?	[ ]
2	Code paths	Are ALL branches and conditionals traced?	[ ]
3	Data flows	Are ALL input→output pipelines described?	[ ]
4	State mutations	Are ALL state changes captured?	[ ]
5	Error handling	Are ALL error paths documented?	[ ]
6	Side effects	Are ALL external interactions noted?	[ ]
7	Edge cases	Are boundary conditions described?	[ ]
8	Concurrency	Are async behaviors documented?	[ ]
9	Configuration	Are ALL config options listed?	[ ]
10	Dependencies	Are ALL external dependencies identified?	[ ]
11	Implementation-free	Zero code, tech names, or architecture in specs?	[ ]
12	Given/When/Then	All acceptance criteria in correct format?	[ ]

Concrete Example: Code to Spec Transformation

Code (input — what you analyze):

function checkAuth(req, res, next) {
  const token = req.headers.authorization?.split(' ')[1];
  if (!token) return res.status(401).json({ error: 'No token' });
  try {
    const decoded = jwt.verify(token, process.env.JWT_SECRET);
    req.user = decoded;
    next();
  } catch (e) {
    return res.status(403).json({ error: 'Invalid token' });
  }
}

Spec (output — what you produce):

# Request Authentication

## Job to Be Done
When a request arrives at a protected endpoint, I want to verify the
caller's identity, so I can ensure only authorized users access the system.

## Acceptance Criteria

### Valid Credentials
- Given a request with valid credentials in the authorization header
- When the request is processed
- Then the request proceeds to the next handler
- And the authenticated user identity is available to downstream handlers

### Missing Credentials
- Given a request without credentials
- When the request is processed
- Then a 401 status is returned
- And an error message indicates missing credentials

### Invalid Credentials
- Given a request with invalid or expired credentials
- When the request is processed
- Then a 403 status is returned
- And an error message indicates invalid credentials

## Edge Cases
- Malformed authorization header (missing "Bearer" prefix): treated as missing credentials
- Expired credentials: treated as invalid credentials

## Data Contracts
- Input: Authorization header in "Bearer <credential>" format
- Output on success: User identity object attached to request context
- Output on failure: JSON error response with appropriate status code

Notice: No mention of JWT, middleware, Express, environment variables, or any implementation detail.

Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes

Mistake	Why It Is Wrong	What To Do Instead
Skipping "boring" code paths	Undocumented behavior causes bugs during refactoring	Trace EVERY path, even error handlers
Leaking implementation details into specs	Defeats the purpose of behavioral specs	Strip all tech names, function names, code
Marking bugs as "correct behavior"	Loses the information that it is a bug	Document in KNOWN_ISSUES.md with severity
Skipping async/concurrency analysis	Race conditions are the hardest bugs to find	Document all async behavior
Analyzing only happy paths	Most bugs live in error paths	Document ALL error handling paths
Guessing behavior instead of tracing code	Spec becomes fiction	Read every line — no assumptions
Generating specs without user review	Misunderstandings propagate	Present for review after each phase

Anti-Rationalization Guards

• [HARD-GATE] Do NOT skip any code path — every branch, conditional, and error handler must be traced
• [HARD-GATE] Do NOT include ANY implementation details in specs — no code, tech names, or architecture
• [HARD-GATE] Do NOT mark the completeness checklist as done until ALL 12 items pass
• Do NOT skip concurrency analysis — even if the code "looks synchronous"
• Do NOT skip configuration analysis — env vars and feature flags change behavior
• Do NOT assume behavior from function names — read the actual code
• Do NOT fix bugs while reverse-engineering — document them in KNOWN_ISSUES.md

Integration Points

Skill	Relationship
spec-writing	Output follows spec-writing format; use for audit after generation
autonomous-loop	Specs feed into planning mode for gap analysis
acceptance-testing	Tests derived from reverse-engineered acceptance criteria
self-learning	Populate memory files with discovered project context
planning	After specs exist, plan improvements or new features
systematic-debugging	Known issues inform debugging priorities

Workflow After Reverse Engineering

Step	Skill	Purpose
1	reverse-engineering-specs (this)	Generate behavioral specs from code
2	spec-writing (audit mode)	Verify quality and completeness
3	planning	Identify gaps, plan improvements
4	autonomous-loop	Implement features or fixes with specs as guide

Verification Gate

Before claiming reverse engineering is complete:

1. VERIFY the completeness checklist (all 12 items) passes
2. VERIFY zero implementation details in any spec file
3. VERIFY all acceptance criteria use Given/When/Then format
4. VERIFY KNOWN_ISSUES.md exists and categorizes all discovered bugs
5. VERIFY the user has reviewed the spec set and KNOWN_ISSUES

Skill Type

Flexible — Adapt investigation depth and subagent count to codebase size while preserving the exhaustive-investigation and implementation-free output rules. No code paths may be skipped.