diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org | 22 |
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org index f90c511..39758a0 100644 --- a/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org +++ b/claude-templates/.ai/workflows/spec-create.org @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ #+TITLE: Spec-Create Workflow -#+AUTHOR: Craig Jennings & Claude +#+AUTHOR: Craig Jennings #+DATE: 2026-06-09 * Overview @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ The guiding principle, drawn from how Google, Oxide, Amazon, Basecamp, and the A It is the front of a trio: - =spec-create.org= (this one) — author writes the spec. -- =spec-review.org= — a reviewer gates the spec for implementation-readiness and writes =<spec-basename>-review.org=. +- =spec-review.org= — a reviewer gates the spec for implementation-readiness and records findings in the spec's =* Review findings= section. - =spec-response.org= — the author folds the review back in. The spec this workflow produces has to *pass spec-review's gate* — that gate is the definition of done. So the structure below is built to answer the reviewer's questions up front. Keep it lightweight anyway: a short required spine plus a *readiness-dimensions menu* where each item is either answered or explicitly marked "N/A because…". The best spec is the shortest one that still lets an engineer build it, test it, and ship behavior that matches the user's mental model. @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ Capture, in this order: ** Phase 2 — Design, alternatives, decisions 1. *Design* — overview first, then detail. Write the reasoning as *prose, not bullet dumps* — prose exposes weak logic that bullets let you hide. Use bullets only for genuinely enumerable lists. When the thing has an interface, use the *two-altitude* split (Rust RFC): explain it once for a user/caller, once for an implementer. + + *Non-trivial UI.* When the deliverable is a real UI (a panel, a multi-control surface, an interacting visual layout — not a single dialog, a CLI flag, or a one-off prompt), the design isn't settled on the page. Run the research → ~5 distinct working-prototype directions → iterate-one-to-final process in =claude-rules/ui-prototyping.md= before treating the UI design as done, and add a =Prototype iterations= subsection under the spec's status heading linking every iteration (final linked in the design section). A UI design decision moves to =DONE= only once it's been seen working in a prototype. 2. *Alternatives considered* — the load-bearing section authors skip and reviewers need most. For each option, force a why-not with the MADR grammar: "Good, because… / Bad, because… / Neutral, because…". Even one rejected option, with the reason, beats presenting one path as inevitable. 3. *Decisions* — capture each real choice as an org =TODO= task carrying an inline mini-ADR (Nygard's spine): - The heading is =** TODO <Decision name>=. It flips to =DONE= when the decision-maker agrees with the call; until then it stays =TODO=. @@ -59,7 +61,7 @@ Capture, in this order: This is where the spec earns a "Ready" from review: an engineer must be able to build it in steps, know when it's done, and never have to invent product behavior mid-implementation. -1. *Implementation phases* — decompose the work into phases each small enough to finish in one focused session and each leaving the tree in a working (not half-broken) state. =spec-review= lifts this section straight into =todo.org= tasks, so a spec that can't be phased fails the gate — the absence is itself a finding. +1. *Implementation phases* — decompose the work into phases each small enough to finish in one focused session and each leaving the tree in a working (not half-broken) state. =spec-review= checks this section decomposes cleanly and =spec-response= lifts it into =todo.org= tasks, so a spec that can't be phased fails the gate — the absence is itself a finding. 2. *Acceptance criteria* — the observable conditions that mean the feature works, written as checkable items. The review's test-surface task mirrors these. 3. *Readiness dimensions* — walk this menu and, for each, either define the behavior or write "N/A because…". The escape hatch keeps a simple spec short; the prompt keeps a hidden decision from slipping into implementation: - *Data model & ownership* — what's user-authored / generated / cached / remote; who owns each editable region; what persists vs refreshes. @@ -82,8 +84,9 @@ This is where the spec earns a "Ready" from review: an engineer must be able to ** Phase 5 — Wire it up (conventions) -- *Filename + location:* =docs/<problem-slug>-spec.org=. Org-mode. The slug names the *problem/feature*, not a date. Must end in =-spec.org=. -- *Metadata header:* a small table at the top — Status, Owner, Reviewer(s), Date, Related (link to the task/ticket). +- *Filename + location:* =docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<problem-slug>-spec.org= — formal specs live in =docs/specs/=, never =docs/design/= (that's for notes, brainstorms, inventories; see =claude-rules/docs-lifecycle.md=). Org-mode. The slug names the *problem/feature*; no status suffixes ever — status lives in the file. Must end in =-spec.org=. +- *Status heading (first element after the file header):* a top-level heading carrying the lifecycle keyword, stamped =DRAFT= at authoring — spec-create owns this flip. It holds an =:ID:= UUID (generate with =uuidgen=) and dated history lines, newest first. The keyword is authoritative; the Metadata =Status= field mirrors it in lowercase. Transitions are three lines in one file (keyword + history line + mirror): spec-review flips =READY=, spec-response flips =DOING= at decomposition, the final build task flips =IMPLEMENTED=. Terminal states always record a reason. +- *Metadata header:* a small table at the top — Status (the lowercase mirror), Owner, Reviewer(s), Date, Related (link to the task/ticket). - *Review-and-iteration-history stub:* add a =Review and iteration history= section at the bottom and seed it with the author's first entry. =spec-review= and =spec-response= append provenance entries here, so the heading shape is a contract: =YYYY-MM-DD Day @ HH:MM:SS -ZZZZ — Contributor — Role=, body fields What / Why / Artifacts. - *Cross-link both ways:* the spec links its task; the task links the spec (replace the task's inline plan with a terse description + a =file:= link to the spec). @@ -103,7 +106,14 @@ Then it's ready for =spec-review.org=. Snapshot-vs-living rule: keep the spec li ,#+TITLE: <Feature> — Spec ,#+AUTHOR: <author> ,#+DATE: <YYYY-MM-DD> -,#+TODO: TODO | DONE SUPERSEDED CANCELLED +,#+TODO: TODO | DONE +,#+TODO: DRAFT READY DOING | IMPLEMENTED SUPERSEDED CANCELLED + +,* DRAFT <spec short name> +:PROPERTIES: +:ID: <uuid — generate with uuidgen> +:END: +- <YYYY-MM-DD Day @ HH:MM:SS -ZZZZ> — drafted. ,* Metadata | Status | draft | |