ros/spec-kit
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/github/spec-kit.git synced 2026-01-30 04:32:02 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'main' into localden/vscode

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Den Delimarsky
2025-10-21 15:06:44 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 115b4335d9 79328aa38d
commit 0ac76c8c7e
28 changed files with 246 additions and 172 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
templates/agent-file-template.md
View File

@@ -3,20 +3,25 @@
Auto-generated from all feature plans. Last updated: [DATE]
## Active Technologies
[EXTRACTED FROM ALL PLAN.MD FILES]
## Project Structure
```
```text
[ACTUAL STRUCTURE FROM PLANS]
```
## Commands
[ONLY COMMANDS FOR ACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES]
## Code Style
[LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC, ONLY FOR LANGUAGES IN USE]
## Recent Changes
[LAST 3 FEATURES AND WHAT THEY ADDED]
<!-- MANUAL ADDITIONS START -->

1
templates/checklist-template.md
View File

@@ -38,4 +38,3 @@
- Add comments or findings inline
- Link to relevant resources or documentation
- Items are numbered sequentially for easy reference

1
templates/commands/analyze.md
View File

@@ -185,4 +185,3 @@ Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the t
## Context
{ARGS}

38
templates/commands/checklist.md
View File

@@ -10,12 +10,14 @@ scripts:
**CRITICAL CONCEPT**: Checklists are **UNIT TESTS FOR REQUIREMENTS WRITING** - they validate the quality, clarity, and completeness of requirements in a given domain.
**NOT for verification/testing**:
- ❌ NOT "Verify the button clicks correctly"
- ❌ NOT "Test error handling works"
- ❌ NOT "Confirm the API returns 200"
- ❌ NOT checking if code/implementation matches the spec
**FOR requirements quality validation**:
- ✅ "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined for all card types?" (completeness)
- ✅ "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" (clarity)
- ✅ "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" (consistency)
@@ -80,7 +82,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- spec.md: Feature requirements and scope
- plan.md (if exists): Technical details, dependencies
- tasks.md (if exists): Implementation tasks
**Context Loading Strategy**:
- Load only necessary portions relevant to active focus areas (avoid full-file dumping)
- Prefer summarizing long sections into concise scenario/requirement bullets
@@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- Create `FEATURE_DIR/checklists/` directory if it doesn't exist
- Generate unique checklist filename:
- Use short, descriptive name based on domain (e.g., `ux.md`, `api.md`, `security.md`)
- Format: `[domain].md`
- Format: `[domain].md`
- If file exists, append to existing file
- Number items sequentially starting from CHK001
- Each `/speckit.checklist` run creates a NEW file (never overwrites existing checklists)
@@ -103,7 +105,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- **Consistency**: Do requirements align with each other?
- **Measurability**: Can requirements be objectively verified?
- **Coverage**: Are all scenarios/edge cases addressed?
**Category Structure** - Group items by requirement quality dimensions:
- **Requirement Completeness** (Are all necessary requirements documented?)
- **Requirement Clarity** (Are requirements specific and unambiguous?)
@@ -114,14 +116,14 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- **Non-Functional Requirements** (Performance, Security, Accessibility, etc. - are they specified?)
- **Dependencies & Assumptions** (Are they documented and validated?)
- **Ambiguities & Conflicts** (What needs clarification?)
**HOW TO WRITE CHECKLIST ITEMS - "Unit Tests for English"**:
❌ **WRONG** (Testing implementation):
- "Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards"
- "Test hover states work on desktop"
- "Confirm logo click navigates home"
✅ **CORRECT** (Testing requirements quality):
- "Are the exact number and layout of featured episodes specified?" [Completeness]
- "Is 'prominent display' quantified with specific sizing/positioning?" [Clarity]
@@ -130,7 +132,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- "Is the fallback behavior specified when logo image fails to load?" [Edge Cases]
- "Are loading states defined for asynchronous episode data?" [Completeness]
- "Does the spec define visual hierarchy for competing UI elements?" [Clarity]
**ITEM STRUCTURE**:
Each item should follow this pattern:
- Question format asking about requirement quality
@@ -138,28 +140,28 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- Include quality dimension in brackets [Completeness/Clarity/Consistency/etc.]
- Reference spec section `[Spec §X.Y]` when checking existing requirements
- Use `[Gap]` marker when checking for missing requirements
**EXAMPLES BY QUALITY DIMENSION**:
Completeness:
- "Are error handling requirements defined for all API failure modes? [Gap]"
- "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Completeness]"
- "Are mobile breakpoint requirements defined for responsive layouts? [Gap]"
Clarity:
- "Is 'fast loading' quantified with specific timing thresholds? [Clarity, Spec §NFR-2]"
- "Are 'related episodes' selection criteria explicitly defined? [Clarity, Spec §FR-5]"
- "Is 'prominent' defined with measurable visual properties? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-4]"
Consistency:
- "Do navigation requirements align across all pages? [Consistency, Spec §FR-10]"
- "Are card component requirements consistent between landing and detail pages? [Consistency]"
Coverage:
- "Are requirements defined for zero-state scenarios (no episodes)? [Coverage, Edge Case]"
- "Are concurrent user interaction scenarios addressed? [Coverage, Gap]"
- "Are requirements specified for partial data loading failures? [Coverage, Exception Flow]"
Measurability:
- "Are visual hierarchy requirements measurable/testable? [Acceptance Criteria, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Can 'balanced visual weight' be objectively verified? [Measurability, Spec §FR-2]"
@@ -195,7 +197,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- ❌ "Click", "navigate", "render", "load", "execute"
- ❌ Test cases, test plans, QA procedures
- ❌ Implementation details (frameworks, APIs, algorithms)
**✅ REQUIRED PATTERNS** - These test requirements quality:
- ✅ "Are [requirement type] defined/specified/documented for [scenario]?"
- ✅ "Is [vague term] quantified/clarified with specific criteria?"
@@ -225,6 +227,7 @@ To avoid clutter, use descriptive types and clean up obsolete checklists when do
**UX Requirements Quality:** `ux.md`
Sample items (testing the requirements, NOT the implementation):
- "Are visual hierarchy requirements defined with measurable criteria? [Clarity, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Is the number and positioning of UI elements explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-1]"
- "Are interaction state requirements (hover, focus, active) consistently defined? [Consistency]"
@@ -235,6 +238,7 @@ Sample items (testing the requirements, NOT the implementation):
**API Requirements Quality:** `api.md`
Sample items:
- "Are error response formats specified for all failure scenarios? [Completeness]"
- "Are rate limiting requirements quantified with specific thresholds? [Clarity]"
- "Are authentication requirements consistent across all endpoints? [Consistency]"
@@ -244,6 +248,7 @@ Sample items:
**Performance Requirements Quality:** `performance.md`
Sample items:
- "Are performance requirements quantified with specific metrics? [Clarity]"
- "Are performance targets defined for all critical user journeys? [Coverage]"
- "Are performance requirements under different load conditions specified? [Completeness]"
@@ -253,6 +258,7 @@ Sample items:
**Security Requirements Quality:** `security.md`
Sample items:
- "Are authentication requirements specified for all protected resources? [Coverage]"
- "Are data protection requirements defined for sensitive information? [Completeness]"
- "Is the threat model documented and requirements aligned to it? [Traceability]"
@@ -282,10 +288,10 @@ Sample items:
```
**Key Differences:**
- Wrong: Tests if the system works correctly
- Correct: Tests if the requirements are written correctly
- Wrong: Verification of behavior
- Correct: Validation of requirement quality
- Wrong: "Does it do X?"
- Wrong: "Does it do X?"
- Correct: "Is X clearly specified?"

70
templates/commands/clarify.md
View File

@@ -91,63 +91,63 @@ Execution steps:
3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:
- Maximum of 10 total questions across the whole session.
- Each question must be answerable with EITHER:
* A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
* A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").
- Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.
- Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.
- Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).
- Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.
- If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.
- A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
- A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").
- Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.
- Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.
- Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).
- Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.
- If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.
4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):
- Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.
- For multiple‑choice questions:
* **Analyze all options** and determine the **most suitable option** based on:
- **Analyze all options** and determine the **most suitable option** based on:
- Best practices for the project type
- Common patterns in similar implementations
- Risk reduction (security, performance, maintainability)
- Alignment with any explicit project goals or constraints visible in the spec
* Present your **recommended option prominently** at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).
* Format as: `**Recommended:** Option [X] - <reasoning>`
* Then render all options as a Markdown table:
- Present your **recommended option prominently** at the top with clear reasoning (1-2 sentences explaining why this is the best choice).
- Format as: `**Recommended:** Option [X] - <reasoning>`
- Then render all options as a Markdown table:
| Option | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| A | <Option A description> |
| B | <Option B description> |
| C | <Option C description> | (add D/E as needed up to 5)
| Short | Provide a different short answer (<=5 words) | (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate)
| C | <Option C description> (add D/E as needed up to 5) |
| Short | Provide a different short answer (<=5 words) (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate) |
* After the table, add: `You can reply with the option letter (e.g., "A"), accept the recommendation by saying "yes" or "recommended", or provide your own short answer.`
- After the table, add: `You can reply with the option letter (e.g., "A"), accept the recommendation by saying "yes" or "recommended", or provide your own short answer.`
- For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options):
* Provide your **suggested answer** based on best practices and context.
* Format as: `**Suggested:** <your proposed answer> - <brief reasoning>`
* Then output: `Format: Short answer (<=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying "yes" or "suggested", or provide your own answer.`
- Provide your **suggested answer** based on best practices and context.
- Format as: `**Suggested:** <your proposed answer> - <brief reasoning>`
- Then output: `Format: Short answer (<=5 words). You can accept the suggestion by saying "yes" or "suggested", or provide your own answer.`
- After the user answers:
* If the user replies with "yes", "recommended", or "suggested", use your previously stated recommendation/suggestion as the answer.
* Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.
* If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).
* Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.
- If the user replies with "yes", "recommended", or "suggested", use your previously stated recommendation/suggestion as the answer.
- Otherwise, validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.
- If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).
- Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.
- Stop asking further questions when:
* All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR
* User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR
* You reach 5 asked questions.
- All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR
- User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR
- You reach 5 asked questions.
- Never reveal future queued questions in advance.
- If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.
5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):
- Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.
- For the first integrated answer in this session:
* Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).
* Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.
- Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).
- Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.
- Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: `- Q: <question> → A: <final answer>`.
- Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):
* Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
* User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
* Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
* Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
* Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
* Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as "X")` once.
- Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
- User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
- Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
- Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
- Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
- Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as "X")` once.
- If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.
- Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).
- Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.
@@ -172,13 +172,13 @@ Execution steps:
- Suggested next command.
Behavior rules:
- If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.
- If spec file missing, instruct user to run `/speckit.specify` first (do not create a new spec here).
- Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).
- Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.
- Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").
- If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
- If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.
- If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
- If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.
Context for prioritization: {ARGS}

8
templates/commands/constitution.md
View File

@@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ Follow this execution flow:
- Otherwise infer from existing repo context (README, docs, prior constitution versions if embedded).
- For governance dates: `RATIFICATION_DATE` is the original adoption date (if unknown ask or mark TODO), `LAST_AMENDED_DATE` is today if changes are made, otherwise keep previous.
- `CONSTITUTION_VERSION` must increment according to semantic versioning rules:
* MAJOR: Backward incompatible governance/principle removals or redefinitions.
* MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.
* PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.
- MAJOR: Backward incompatible governance/principle removals or redefinitions.
- MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.
- PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.
- If version bump type ambiguous, propose reasoning before finalizing.
3. Draft the updated constitution content:
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ Follow this execution flow:
- Suggested commit message (e.g., `docs: amend constitution to vX.Y.Z (principle additions + governance update)`).
Formatting & Style Requirements:
- Use Markdown headings exactly as in the template (do not demote/promote levels).
- Wrap long rationale lines to keep readability (<100 chars ideally) but do not hard enforce with awkward breaks.
- Keep a single blank line between sections.
@@ -79,4 +80,3 @@ If the user supplies partial updates (e.g., only one principle revision), still
If critical info missing (e.g., ratification date truly unknown), insert `TODO(<FIELD_NAME>): explanation` and include in the Sync Impact Report under deferred items.
Do not create a new template; always operate on the existing `/memory/constitution.md` file.

43
templates/commands/implement.md
View File

@@ -20,31 +20,33 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
2. **Check checklists status** (if FEATURE_DIR/checklists/ exists):
- Scan all checklist files in the checklists/ directory
- For each checklist, count:
* Total items: All lines matching `- [ ]` or `- [X]` or `- [x]`
* Completed items: Lines matching `- [X]` or `- [x]`
* Incomplete items: Lines matching `- [ ]`
- Total items: All lines matching `- [ ]` or `- [X]` or `- [x]`
- Completed items: Lines matching `- [X]` or `- [x]`
- Incomplete items: Lines matching `- [ ]`
- Create a status table:
```
```text
| Checklist | Total | Completed | Incomplete | Status |
|-----------|-------|-----------|------------|--------|
| ux.md | 12 | 12 | 0 | ✓ PASS |
| test.md | 8 | 5 | 3 | ✗ FAIL |
| security.md | 6 | 6 | 0 | ✓ PASS |
```
- Calculate overall status:
* **PASS**: All checklists have 0 incomplete items
* **FAIL**: One or more checklists have incomplete items
- **PASS**: All checklists have 0 incomplete items
- **FAIL**: One or more checklists have incomplete items
- **If any checklist is incomplete**:
* Display the table with incomplete item counts
* **STOP** and ask: "Some checklists are incomplete. Do you want to proceed with implementation anyway? (yes/no)"
* Wait for user response before continuing
* If user says "no" or "wait" or "stop", halt execution
* If user says "yes" or "proceed" or "continue", proceed to step 3
- Display the table with incomplete item counts
- **STOP** and ask: "Some checklists are incomplete. Do you want to proceed with implementation anyway? (yes/no)"
- Wait for user response before continuing
- If user says "no" or "wait" or "stop", halt execution
- If user says "yes" or "proceed" or "continue", proceed to step 3
- **If all checklists are complete**:
* Display the table showing all checklists passed
* Automatically proceed to step 3
- Display the table showing all checklists passed
- Automatically proceed to step 3
3. Load and analyze the implementation context:
- **REQUIRED**: Read tasks.md for the complete task list and execution plan
@@ -56,23 +58,24 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
4. **Project Setup Verification**:
- **REQUIRED**: Create/verify ignore files based on actual project setup:
**Detection & Creation Logic**:
- Check if the following command succeeds to determine if the repository is a git repo (create/verify .gitignore if so):
```sh
git rev-parse --git-dir 2>/dev/null
```
- Check if Dockerfile* exists or Docker in plan.md → create/verify .dockerignore
- Check if .eslintrc* or eslint.config.* exists → create/verify .eslintignore
- Check if .eslintrc*or eslint.config.* exists → create/verify .eslintignore
- Check if .prettierrc* exists → create/verify .prettierignore
- Check if .npmrc or package.json exists → create/verify .npmignore (if publishing)
- Check if terraform files (*.tf) exist → create/verify .terraformignore
- Check if .helmignore needed (helm charts present) → create/verify .helmignore
**If ignore file already exists**: Verify it contains essential patterns, append missing critical patterns only
**If ignore file missing**: Create with full pattern set for detected technology
**Common Patterns by Technology** (from plan.md tech stack):
- **Node.js/JavaScript/TypeScript**: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `build/`, `*.log`, `.env*`
- **Python**: `__pycache__/`, `*.pyc`, `.venv/`, `venv/`, `dist/`, `*.egg-info/`
@@ -88,7 +91,7 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- **Swift**: `.build/`, `DerivedData/`, `*.swiftpm/`, `Packages/`
- **R**: `.Rproj.user/`, `.Rhistory`, `.RData`, `.Ruserdata`, `*.Rproj`, `packrat/`, `renv/`
- **Universal**: `.DS_Store`, `Thumbs.db`, `*.tmp`, `*.swp`, `.vscode/`, `.idea/`
**Tool-Specific Patterns**:
- **Docker**: `node_modules/`, `.git/`, `Dockerfile*`, `.dockerignore`, `*.log*`, `.env*`, `coverage/`
- **ESLint**: `node_modules/`, `dist/`, `build/`, `coverage/`, `*.min.js`

4
templates/commands/plan.md
View File

@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- For each integration → patterns task
2. **Generate and dispatch research agents**:
```
```text
For each unknown in Technical Context:
Task: "Research {unknown} for {feature context}"
For each technology choice:
@@ -91,4 +92,3 @@ You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
- Use absolute paths
- ERROR on gate failures or unresolved clarifications

21
templates/commands/specify.md
View File

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Given that feature description, do this:
6. **Specification Quality Validation**: After writing the initial spec, validate it against quality criteria:
a. **Create Spec Quality Checklist**: Generate a checklist file at `FEATURE_DIR/checklists/requirements.md` using the checklist template structure with these validation items:
```markdown
# Specification Quality Checklist: [FEATURE NAME]
@@ -120,26 +120,26 @@ Given that feature description, do this:
- 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 step 6
- **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:
```markdown
## Question [N]: [Topic]
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Given that feature description, do this:
**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|`
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ Given that feature description, do this:
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
7. Report completion with branch name, spec file path, checklist results, and readiness for the next phase (`/speckit.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`).
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ When creating this spec from a user prompt:
- 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
@@ -238,4 +238,3 @@ Success criteria must be:
- "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)

8
templates/commands/tasks.md
View File

@@ -115,16 +115,16 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
- Endpoints/UI needed for that story
- If tests requested: Tests specific to that story
- Mark story dependencies (most stories should be independent)
2. **From Contracts**:
- Map each contract/endpoint → to the user story it serves
- If tests requested: Each contract → contract test task [P] before implementation in that story's phase
3. **From Data Model**:
- Map each entity to the user story(ies) that need it
- If entity serves multiple stories: Put in earliest story or Setup phase
- Relationships → service layer tasks in appropriate story phase
4. **From Setup/Infrastructure**:
- Shared infrastructure → Setup phase (Phase 1)
- Foundational/blocking tasks → Foundational phase (Phase 2)
@@ -138,5 +138,3 @@ Every task MUST strictly follow this format:
- Within each story: Tests (if requested) → Models → Services → Endpoints → Integration
- Each phase should be a complete, independently testable increment
- **Final Phase**: Polish & Cross-Cutting Concerns

7
templates/plan-template.md
View File

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
### Documentation (this feature)
```
```text
specs/[###-feature]/
├── plan.md # This file (/speckit.plan command output)
├── research.md # Phase 0 output (/speckit.plan command)
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ specs/[###-feature]/
not include Option labels.
-->
```
```text
# [REMOVE IF UNUSED] Option 1: Single project (DEFAULT)
src/
├── models/
@@ -96,10 +96,9 @@ directories captured above]
## Complexity Tracking
*Fill ONLY if Constitution Check has violations that must be justified*
> **Fill ONLY if Constitution Check has violations that must be justified**
| Violation | Why Needed | Simpler Alternative Rejected Because |
|-----------|------------|-------------------------------------|
| [e.g., 4th project] | [current need] | [why 3 projects insufficient] |
| [e.g., Repository pattern] | [specific problem] | [why direct DB access insufficient] |

1
templates/spec-template.md
View File

@@ -113,4 +113,3 @@
- **SC-002**: [Measurable metric, e.g., "System handles 1000 concurrent users without degradation"]
- **SC-003**: [User satisfaction metric, e.g., "90% of users successfully complete primary task on first attempt"]
- **SC-004**: [Business metric, e.g., "Reduce support tickets related to [X] by 50%"]

8
templates/tasks-template.md
View File

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
---
description: "Task list template for feature implementation"
---
@@ -12,11 +13,13 @@ description: "Task list template for feature implementation"
**Organization**: Tasks are grouped by user story to enable independent implementation and testing of each story.
## Format: `[ID] [P?] [Story] Description`
- **[P]**: Can run in parallel (different files, no dependencies)
- **[Story]**: Which user story this task belongs to (e.g., US1, US2, US3)
- Include exact file paths in descriptions
## Path Conventions
- **Single project**: `src/`, `tests/` at repository root
- **Web app**: `backend/src/`, `frontend/src/`
- **Mobile**: `api/src/`, `ios/src/` or `android/src/`
@@ -78,7 +81,7 @@ Examples of foundational tasks (adjust based on your project):
### Tests for User Story 1 (OPTIONAL - only if tests requested) ⚠️
**NOTE: Write these tests FIRST, ensure they FAIL before implementation**
> **NOTE: Write these tests FIRST, ensure they FAIL before implementation**
- [ ] T010 [P] [US1] Contract test for [endpoint] in tests/contract/test_[name].py
- [ ] T011 [P] [US1] Integration test for [user journey] in tests/integration/test_[name].py
@@ -246,6 +249,3 @@ With multiple developers:
- Commit after each task or logical group
- Stop at any checkpoint to validate story independently
- Avoid: vague tasks, same file conflicts, cross-story dependencies that break independence