ros/spec-kit
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/github/spec-kit.git synced 2026-02-02 22:13:36 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(ci): add markdownlint-cli2 for consistent markdown formatting

Browse Source 
Add automated markdown linting to ensure consistent formatting across
all markdown files in the repository.

Changes:
- Add .markdownlint-cli2.jsonc configuration
- Create .github/workflows/lint.yml for CI/CD integration
- Fix all 908 existing markdown errors across 27 files
- Enforce ATX-style headings and asterisk emphasis
- Set consistent 2-space list indentation

This prevents markdown errors after project initialization and
maintains high documentation quality standards.
This commit is contained in:
Benjamin Pahl
2025-10-20 00:49:15 +02:00
parent ea90d02c41
commit 33a07969c3
28 changed files with 247 additions and 174 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

70
templates/commands/clarify.md
View File

@@ -87,63 +87,63 @@ 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.
@@ -168,13 +168,13 @@ 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}