spec

name: spec description: > Turn a vague feature or product idea into an agreed, persisted specification through relentless structured questioning. Never assumes — every gap, ambiguity, or "probably" becomes a question to the developer, and the spec cannot be approved while open questions remain. Produces docs/specs/<NNN>-<slug>.md with acceptance criteria that /plan, /scaffold, and /tdd consume. Use when: "spec", "write a spec", "spec this out", "requirements", "PRD", "acceptance criteria", "define the feature", "user stories", "what should we build", or before planning any feature too big to describe in one sentence.

/spec — Relentless Specification Workflow

What

Converts an idea into a written, versioned specification that both the developer and Claude explicitly agree on — before any planning or code. The contract:

• Never assume. Every gap in the idea becomes a question. If Claude catches itself thinking "probably", "presumably", or "the usual way" — that thought is a question to ask, not a decision to make.
• Relentless, but structured. Questions come in focused rounds (3–5 at a time) across nine dimensions — not one overwhelming dump, and not a single polite round that stops early.
• Agreement is explicit. Specs have a status lifecycle: Draft → In Review → Approved. Implementation never starts from a Draft. Approval requires the developer to read the final document and say so.
• Specs are files, not chat. Output persists to docs/specs/<NNN>-<slug>.md and survives the session. Plans, tests, and commits reference it.

When

• Any feature too big to describe completely in one sentence
• New product or module ideas ("I want to add team workspaces")
• Before /plan for non-trivial features — plan consumes the approved spec
• When requirements feel fuzzy mid-implementation: stop, /spec, re-plan
• Trigger phrases: "spec", "requirements", "PRD", "define the feature", "acceptance criteria"

Skip for: bug fixes, refactors, single-endpoint CRUD where the entity is obvious.

How

Step 1: Capture and Restate

Take the raw idea and restate it in one paragraph: what Claude understood, in its own words. End with: "Is this the idea? What did I get wrong?" Do not begin questioning until the developer confirms the restatement — questioning the wrong idea wastes everyone's time.

Step 2: Questioning Rounds

Work through the nine dimensions in order. Each round: pick the 3–5 most load-bearing unanswered questions (answers that reshape later questions come first). Where the harness supports selectable options, present choices with trade-offs — and a recommendation — but the developer chooses; a recommendation is never silently applied.

Rules of relentless questioning:

• Record every answer in the draft spec immediately — answers are requirements, not conversation.
• Challenge contradictions on the spot: "In round 1 you said X; this answer implies not-X. Which wins?"
• "I don't know" is a legal answer → moves to Deferred Decisions with an explicit fallback the developer chooses now ("default to soft-delete until decided"). Silent deferral is forbidden.
• A dimension is done when a follow-up round generates zero new questions for it.
• The questioning phase is done when ALL nine dimensions are done. Do not stop because the conversation feels long — stopping early is how assumptions sneak in.

Step 3: Draft the Spec File

Determine the next number from existing files in docs/specs/ (create the directory if missing). Write docs/specs/<NNN>-<slug>.md:

# Spec NNN: <Title>

**Status:** Draft
**Date:** <today>

## Problem            <!-- who hurts, why now -->
## Scope              <!-- ### In / ### Out — both explicit -->
## Domain Model       <!-- entities, relationships, lifecycle -->
## API Contract       <!-- endpoints table: verb, route, request, response, errors -->
## Authorization      <!-- who can do what -->
## Edge Cases & Failure Modes
## Non-Functional Requirements
## Integrations
## Acceptance Criteria  <!-- Given/When/Then, numbered AC-1, AC-2, ... -->
## Deferred Decisions   <!-- decision, chosen fallback, revisit trigger -->
## Open Questions       <!-- MUST be empty before approval -->

Step 4: Review Loop

Set status to In Review. Present the complete spec and ask: "Read this end-to-end. What is wrong, missing, or over-engineered?" Fold corrections in and re-present. Repeat until the developer has no further changes. New answers may spawn new questions — that is the process working, not a failure to converge.

Step 5: The Agreement Gate

Approval is a deliberate act, never inferred from silence or "looks good" in passing. Ask explicitly: "Do you approve this spec? After approval, code follows the spec — changes go through the spec first." On approval, set **Status:** Approved (<date>).

• Open Questions must be empty. If any remain, the spec cannot be approved — resolve or defer each one explicitly.
• If implementation later reveals a wrong assumption: stop, set status back to In Review, fix the spec with the developer, then resume. Code never silently diverges from an approved spec.

Step 6: Handoff

• /plan reads the approved spec and maps acceptance criteria to implementation steps
• /tdd turns acceptance criteria into the first failing tests (AC-n → test name)
• Commits for the feature reference the spec: feat: team workspaces (spec 004)

Example

User: /spec users should be able to invite teammates

Claude: Here's what I understood: an existing user can invite another person
  to join their... workspace? account? That's already my first gap.
  Is this the idea? What did I get wrong?

User: yes, invite to their organization

Claude: Round 1 — Scope & Users:
  1. Can invitees be people without an existing account, or only registered users?
  2. Who can invite — any member, or only admins/owners?
  3. Is there a limit on pending invites (per org, per plan)?
  4. Out of scope check: bulk invites and SSO-provisioned members — both OUT for now?

User: 1: both. 2: admins only. 3: no limit. 4: correct, both out.

Claude: Round 2 — Edge cases (your "both" in Q1 raises these):
  1. Inviting an email that already has a pending invite — error, or resend?
  2. Invite expiry — 7 days, 30 days, never?
  3. Invitee already belongs to another org — multi-org membership or rejection?
  ...

[…rounds continue until all nine dimensions are exhausted…]

Claude: Spec written to docs/specs/004-team-invitations.md (In Review).
  Read it end-to-end. What is wrong, missing, or over-engineered?

User: looks right. approved.

Claude: Status: Approved (2026-06-12). Next: /plan to map AC-1..AC-9
  to implementation steps.

Related

• /plan — Consumes the approved spec; never plan a spec-worthy feature without one
• /tdd — Acceptance criteria become the first failing tests
• /scaffold — Generates the slices the plan calls for
• architecture-advisor — Load during Step 2 if the feature forces architectural decisions