cf:specs · diff
v3.0.0 to v3.0.0
40 added, 59 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: hapo:specs
- description: "Turn a substantial feature idea into a bounded, reviewed plan and executable flat task files, with human decisions at scope, findings, and completion. Use when the work needs durable coordination; skip for a clear one-file or two-file change."
+ description: "Turn a substantial or risk-elevated feature idea into a bounded, reviewed plan and executable flat task files, with human decisions at scope, findings, and completion. Use when work needs durable coordination or is not eligible for direct work; skip only when a change is clear, isolated, reversible, routine, and likely limited to one or two files."
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "<feature-description>"
metadata:
author: haposoft
version: "3.0.0"
---
# Specs — process-first planning
- Quality comes from a short decision process; honesty comes from evidence. Keep
- the human at exactly three gates and let the agent do the work between them.
- The durable output is Markdown that can be read and edited without a compiler.
+ Quality comes from a short decision process; honesty comes from evidence. Keep the human at exactly three gates; durable output is editable Markdown.
- ## Step 0 — decide whether a plan earns its cost
+ ## Step 0 — classify risk before routing
- Work directly when the cause and change are clear, isolated, reversible, and
- likely limited to one or two files. Use this skill when the request crosses
- components, contains a product or architecture choice, has meaningful failure
- risk, or needs several tasks, sessions, or owners.
+ Classify material risk before choosing a workflow; user wording never lowers an observed floor.
- Do not create a plan merely because this skill was mentioned in surrounding
- documentation. The user must invoke Specs or ask for durable planning.
+ - `critical`: auth/secrets/privacy; destructive/irreversible work or possible data loss/corruption; money/privilege/safety; production-state mutation.
+ - `elevated`: cross-component contracts, compatibility, concurrency, external integration, or installed/runtime behavior.
+ - `routine`: only when no elevated or critical signal applies.
+ Work directly only when the cause and change are clear, isolated, reversible,
+ `routine`, and likely limited to one or two files. Route unresolved user-owned
+ observable choices to C1/C2 first; after they settle, route material competing
+ technical designs through Brainstorm. Split three or more independent
+ subsystems; otherwise use one Specs packet for any material work that does not qualify for direct work or Brainstorm-only exploration. A subsystem is independent only when its outcome, boundary, and verification/deployment path can move through the lifecycle separately.
+
+ Do not create a plan merely because documentation mentions this skill; the user must invoke Specs or ask for durable planning.
+
## The three human gates
| Gate | Timing | Human decision |
|---|---|---|
| C1 — Scope | before writing the plan | EXPAND, KEEP, or CUT the proposed minimum change |
| C2 — Findings | after adversarial review | accept, reject, or revise each deduplicated finding |
| C3 — Done | after execution | accept completion from current command output and receipts |
- Ask once at each gate. Do not ask for routine implementation choices between
- the gates. If new evidence invalidates the scope, return to C1 instead of
- silently expanding it.
+ Ask once at each gate. Do not ask for routine implementation choices between them. New evidence that invalidates scope returns to C1.
## Primary output layout
Create one direct child of the repository's `specs/` directory:
```text
specs/<feature>/
├── plan.md
├── task-01-<slug>.md
└── task-02-<slug>.md
```
- Task files are flat beside `plan.md`. Do not create a nested task directory.
- Use safe lowercase feature and task slugs. Read
- [`references/templates.md`](references/templates.md) before authoring these
- files.
+ Task files are flat beside `plan.md`. Do not create a nested task directory. Use safe lowercase slugs and read [`references/templates.md`](references/templates.md) first.
## Flow
### 1. Challenge scope, then open C1
- Inspect the repository before drafting. Answer three questions with current
- `path:line` evidence:
+ Inspect the repository before drafting. Answer three questions with current `path:line` evidence:
1. What already exists and can be reused?
2. What is the smallest change set that delivers the requested outcome?
- 3. What signals expansion: more than eight touched files, more than two new
- services/classes, or more than three independent work groups?
+ 3. What signals expansion: more than eight touched files, more than two new services/classes, or three or more independently deliverable subsystems?
Present the answers and ask the user to EXPAND, KEEP, or CUT. Record the chosen
scope and explicit exclusions in `plan.md`.
### 2. Write the plan and task packets
- Keep `plan.md` as the short index: C1 decision, EARS acceptance criteria,
- explicit exclusions, and a task table. Every acceptance criterion receives a
- stable ID, and every task row lists the criteria it satisfies.
+ Keep `plan.md` as the short index: C1 decision, EARS criteria, exclusions, and task table. Give every criterion a stable ID mapped by task rows.
- Make each task small enough for one owner to hold in one reading: one outcome,
- normally no more than about five owned files, explicit dependencies, measurable
- acceptance, and a runnable verification command. A task must deliver usable
- behavior; do not create preparation-only tasks.
+ For a Specs route, persist the canonical `## Coverage profile` from
+ `references/templates.md`: one `CP-NN` row per observable outcome; tasks reference IDs instead of copying it.
- Author exact task state, not prose readiness. `pending` means semantically ready
- for the dependency-aware queue. Use `blocked` while a C1/C2 decision, an
- accepted finding, or `UNKNOWN` closure remains open. A named task dependency
- alone does not change `pending` to `blocked`; the resolver derives which pending
- task is next. Change `blocked` to `pending` only after current evidence closes
- every non-dependency blocker; keep pre-execution Receipts empty.
+ Each task has one usable outcome, normally at most about five owned files, explicit dependencies, measurable acceptance, and a runnable verification command; no preparation-only tasks.
- When an outcome is uncertain, write a question rather than guessing. When a
- rule remains ambiguous, add two or three concrete examples and resolve the rule
- at C1 or C2.
+ Author exact state: `pending` means semantically ready for the dependency-aware queue.
+ Use `blocked` while a C1/C2 decision, accepted finding, or `UNKNOWN` closure remains
+ open. Dependencies alone do not change `pending`; the resolver queues them. Promote only after current evidence closes every non-dependency blocker; keep pre-execution Receipts empty.
+ `Required proof` is planned, not executed evidence. Unknown command/caller/environment
+ reachability blocks `pending`; known unrun proof does not. Missing, failed, or unavailable
+ required evidence blocks `done`/C3; levels never promote. Rederive affected CP rows after accepted scope, outcome, criteria, ownership, dependency, risk, or proof deltas, before status.
+ Source/static checks prove the written contract, not live-model adherence.
+
### 3. Review adversarially, then open C2
- Read [`references/review.md`](references/review.md) and run its fresh-context
- review. Every finding needs a reproducible `path:line` citation and a concrete
- failure scenario. Deduplicate, rank, and cap the list at 15.
+ Read [`references/review.md`](references/review.md) and run its fresh-context review. Require reproducible `path:line` plus a failure scenario; deduplicate, rank, and cap at 15.
- Ask the user to accept, reject, or revise each finding. Apply only accepted
- decisions. After every plan edit, run the consistency sweep across all plan and
- task files, then rederive every task status rather than only the first candidate.
- Write task dependencies as exact flat task basenames so the queue can derive them.
- Stop after two paper-review rounds; later findings require runtime evidence.
+ Ask the user to accept, reject, or revise each finding; apply only accepted decisions. After every edit, sweep all packet files and rederive every status. Dependencies use exact flat task basenames. Stop after two paper rounds; later findings require runtime evidence.
### 4. Execute one task at a time
An implementation workflow owns execution. It selects one unblocked task with
`Status: pending`, changes its single `Status:` field to `in_progress`, respects
owned paths, runs the task's verification, and appends a real inline `## Receipt`
only after the command finishes.
Parallel work is allowed only for tasks with disjoint write ownership and
satisfied dependencies. One file has one writer in a wave. The controller is
the sole writer of task status and receipts.
### 5. Prove completion, then open C3
A task may say `Status: done` only when its inline receipt contains the exact
command, `Exit: 0`, `Verification: PASS`, runtime-bound Base and Head values,
and a non-empty fenced command-output block. Placeholder or remembered output
is not evidence.
Show the user the current evidence and unresolved limitations. The user decides
at C3 whether the feature is done. A passing command proves only what it ran;
it does not invent product approval, review independence, or runtime coverage.
## Ten operating laws
1. **A1 — Scope once.** Raise scope pressure at C1; reopen only with new proof.
2. **A2 — Small packets.** One task, one outcome, one owner, one proof command.
3. **A3 — One fact, one home.** Reference decisions; never copy mutable lists.
- 4. **A4 — Files are state.** `plan.md` and flat task files are canonical and
- hand-editable; indexes are disposable views.
- 5. **B1 — Cite the repository.** Codebase claims carry current `path:line`
- evidence or an explicit `[UNVERIFIED]` marker.
- 6. **B2 — Review from fresh context.** The author does not impersonate the
- independent adversarial reviewer.
- 7. **B3 — Sweep after edits.** Search renamed concepts, rejected assumptions,
- ownership, dependencies, criteria IDs, and copied prose across every file.
- 8. **B4 — Stop paper churn.** Two pre-code review rounds maximum; later claims
- need runtime evidence.
- 9. **C1 — State is derived.** Status follows fresh blocker and proof evidence.
- 10. **C2 — Rules pay rent.** Add a rule or machine check only when it prevents a
- cited real incident; reassess rules when the primary model changes.
+ 4. **A4 — Files are state.** Markdown is canonical; indexes are disposable.
+ 5. **B1 — Cite the repository.** Use current `path:line` or `[UNVERIFIED]`.
+ 6. **B2 — Review fresh.** The author does not impersonate the reviewer.
+ 7. **B3 — Sweep edits.** Reconcile names, decisions, CP rows, ownership, dependencies, criteria, and proof.
+ 8. **B4 — Stop paper churn.** Two pre-code rounds; later claims need runtime evidence.
+ 9. **C1 — Derive state.** Status follows fresh blocker and proof evidence.
+ 10. **C2 — Rules pay rent.** Require a cited failure; reassess for model changes.
## Machine boundary
The shared workflow resolver recognizes only a regular `plan.md` plus one or
more regular flat `task-*.md` files inside one direct feature directory. The
Stop gate revalidates every done task's inline Receipt and provenance. The old
task-scaffold guard remains limited to the older nested layout; flat v3 tasks
do not invoke that kernel path.
The resolver projects exact `Status:` values; it does not infer blockers from prose.
These checks are a final safety net, not a substitute for C1-C3 judgment. Do
not add a new schema, approval field, readiness bit, or review state to make the
Markdown look more authoritative.
## Legacy compatibility
Existing features that contain `spec.json`, nested task files, or separate
receipt files stay on the installed legacy adapters. Do not migrate or rewrite
them while authoring an unrelated v3 feature. New Specs output always uses the
flat layout above and never requires the legacy kernel.
## Maintenance
Keep this entrypoint focused on routing and invariants. Put templates and
examples in `references/templates.md`; put review mechanics in
`references/review.md`. Before adding guidance, identify the observed failure
it prevents and remove duplicated wording elsewhere.