From c3aeba16ff33badb785e0929d82972ea8f90a46c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Salauddin Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 09:34:15 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 01/27] [Spec Kit] Add specification --- .specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml | 2 +- .specify/feature.json | 3 + .../checklists/requirements.md | 39 +++ specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md | 260 ++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 303 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 .specify/feature.json create mode 100644 specs/002-room-lobby-setup/checklists/requirements.md create mode 100644 specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md diff --git a/.specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml b/.specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml index 8c414ba..cbcf5af 100644 --- a/.specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml +++ b/.specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ auto_commit: enabled: false message: "[Spec Kit] Add project constitution" after_specify: - enabled: false + enabled: true message: "[Spec Kit] Add specification" after_clarify: enabled: false diff --git a/.specify/feature.json b/.specify/feature.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000..721f965 --- /dev/null +++ b/.specify/feature.json @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +{ + "feature_directory": "specs/002-room-lobby-setup" +} diff --git a/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/checklists/requirements.md b/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/checklists/requirements.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..47fa62c --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/checklists/requirements.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +# Specification Quality Checklist: Phase 1 Room Lobby Setup + +**Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning +**Created**: 2026-05-19 +**Feature**: [spec.md](/Users/salauddin/Projects/learning/everest-training/spec-kit/final/demo/scribble-assignment/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md) + +## Content Quality + +- [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) +- [x] Focused on user value and business needs +- [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders +- [x] All mandatory sections completed + +## Requirement Completeness + +- [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain +- [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous +- [x] Success criteria are measurable +- [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details) +- [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined +- [x] Edge cases are identified +- [x] Scope is clearly bounded +- [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified + +## Feature Readiness + +- [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria +- [x] User scenarios cover primary flows +- [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria +- [x] No implementation details leak into specification + +## Notes + +- Discovery confirmed the starter already supports basic room creation, joining, + room-scoped participant storage, and manual lobby refresh. +- The specification explicitly captures the missing Phase 1 work: host identity, + automatic lobby refresh within about two seconds, trimmed name validation, clear + room-code feedback, and host-only start gating with a two-player minimum. +- Items marked incomplete require spec updates before `/speckit-clarify` or `/speckit-plan` diff --git a/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md b/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5809f75 --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/002-room-lobby-setup/spec.md @@ -0,0 +1,260 @@ +# Feature Specification: Phase 1 Room Lobby Setup + +**Feature Branch**: `002-room-lobby-setup` + +**Created**: 2026-05-19 + +**Status**: Draft + +**Input**: User description: "I am starting Phase 1 of the Scribble lab. This phase covers room setup, lobby, and player name validation — features R1 through R5 plus G1. + +Before writing the spec, do discovery first. Read these files and note what already exists vs what's missing: +- backend/src/models/game.ts +- backend/src/services/roomStore.ts +- backend/src/api/rooms.ts +- backend/src/api/schemas.ts +- frontend/src/pages/CreateRoomPage.tsx +- frontend/src/pages/JoinRoomPage.tsx +- frontend/src/pages/LobbyPage.tsx +- frontend/src/state/roomStore.ts + +Then write a feature specification covering: + +R1 — Create room: Generates a unique room code; creator joins automatically as host. +R2 — Join room by code: Empty / invalid / non-existent codes are rejected with clear feedback. +R3 — Multi-room isolation: State in room A never appears in room B. +R4 — Lobby player list: Player list refreshes via polling; new joiners appear within ~2s. +R5 — Host starts game: Only the host can start; minimum 2 players required. +G1 — Player name validation: Names are trimmed; empty or whitespace-only names are rejected with a clear message on both Create Room and Join Room flows. + +For each feature, include: +- Acceptance criteria +- Edge cases discovered during inspection +- Discovery notes — what already works in the starter, what is missing or broken + +Stay strictly within these features. Do not include drawer assignment, secret word, drawing, guessing, scoring, result, or restart — those are for later phases. + +Out of scope (do not include in this spec): WebSockets, persistent storage, authentication, multiple rounds, timers, drawer rotation." + +## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)* + +### User Story 1 - Create and Join a Lobby (Priority: P1) + +As a player, I want to create a room or join an existing room with a valid name and +room code so I can enter the correct lobby without confusion. + +**Why this priority**: Without reliable room creation, join flow, and name +validation, no multiplayer session can begin. + +**Independent Test**: A player can create a room, automatically enter that lobby, +and a second player can join it by code with clear validation feedback for invalid +names or room codes. + +**Acceptance Scenarios**: + +1. **Given** a player enters a name with leading or trailing spaces, **When** they + create a room, **Then** the room is created, the name is stored without extra + outer spaces, and the creator enters that room immediately. +2. **Given** a player submits an empty or whitespace-only name on either entry flow, + **When** the form is submitted, **Then** the action is rejected and the player + sees a clear message explaining that a non-empty name is required. +3. **Given** a player enters a valid room code for an existing room, **When** they + join, **Then** they enter that room and appear in its lobby player list. +4. **Given** a player enters a blank, malformed, or non-existent room code, + **When** they try to join, **Then** the join is rejected and the player sees + clear feedback describing the problem. + +**Discovery Notes**: + +- The starter already creates a room, joins the creator to it, and navigates both + create and join flows into the lobby. +- The starter currently accepts missing names and silently substitutes a fallback + player name instead of requiring a valid trimmed name. +- The starter already uppercases join codes in the user flow, but it does not + clearly distinguish blank, malformed, and non-existent codes in user feedback. + +--- + +### User Story 2 - See the Correct Lobby Roster (Priority: P2) + +As a player, I want the lobby player list to refresh automatically and stay isolated +to my room so I can trust who is actually in my session. + +**Why this priority**: Players must see the right roster quickly before they can +coordinate starting the game. + +**Independent Test**: Two rooms can exist at once without participant leakage, and +new joiners appear in the correct lobby within about two seconds without manual +intervention. + +**Acceptance Scenarios**: + +1. **Given** two different rooms exist at the same time, **When** players join one + room, **Then** those players never appear in the other room's lobby list. +2. **Given** a player is waiting in the lobby, **When** another player joins the + same room, **Then** the waiting player sees the updated participant list within + about two seconds. +3. **Given** lobby refresh fails temporarily, **When** the player remains in the + lobby, **Then** the most recent valid participant list remains visible and the + player sees clear refresh feedback. + +**Discovery Notes**: + +- The starter already stores rooms separately by room code, which supports room + isolation at a behavioral level. +- The starter currently offers only a manual refresh action in the lobby; automatic + polling is missing. +- The starter already shows the latest fetched participant list, but not on a timed + refresh cycle. + +--- + +### User Story 3 - Start From the Lobby as Host (Priority: P3) + +As the host, I want to start the game only when enough players are present so the +transition out of the lobby is controlled and valid. + +**Why this priority**: Starting the game is the final gate in Phase 1 and depends on +correct room membership and host identification. + +**Independent Test**: In a room with two or more players, only the host can start +the game; non-host players cannot start it, and the host cannot start with fewer +than two players. + +**Acceptance Scenarios**: + +1. **Given** the room creator is in the lobby alone, **When** they try to start the + game, **Then** the action is blocked and a clear message explains that at least + two players are required. +2. **Given** a room has at least two players, **When** the host starts the game, + **Then** the room leaves the lobby state and all players in that room can + continue into the started game flow. +3. **Given** a non-host player is in the lobby, **When** they attempt to start the + game, **Then** the action is unavailable or rejected with clear feedback. + +**Discovery Notes**: + +- The starter currently shows a Start Game button to any lobby viewer and allows + navigation forward without host checks or minimum-player rules. +- The starter room state only represents the lobby, so start-game behavior must be + introduced for the first time in this phase. +- The starter does not currently record host identity. + +--- + +### Edge Cases + +- A player enters a name made only of spaces on either entry flow. +- A player enters a valid name with accidental outer spaces; the stored display name + must not keep those spaces. +- A player submits a blank room code. +- A player submits a room code with the wrong length or unsupported characters. +- A player submits a room code that looks valid but does not match any active room. +- Two players create different rooms near the same time; each room must keep its own + participants and subsequent updates. +- A player is viewing the lobby while another player joins between refresh cycles. +- The lobby refresh request fails after a previously successful load; the visible + roster should not disappear unnecessarily. +- A non-host opens the lobby at the same time the host has start permission; start + controls and messages must still reflect the correct role. +- The host reaches the lobby with only one player present and attempts to start. + +## Constitution Alignment *(mandatory)* + +- **Typed Contract Impact**: Room state and session data will expand to distinguish + host privileges, start eligibility, and non-lobby status changes needed for + starting the game. +- **Validation Boundaries**: Player names, room codes, room existence checks, + join eligibility, and host-only start attempts all require explicit validation. +- **State & Storage Impact**: Room state remains in-memory and room-scoped. The + feature adds lobby-specific state only and must preserve strict separation between + active rooms. +- **Scope Guardrail**: This specification is limited to Phase 1 room setup, lobby + refresh, host start gating, and trimmed name validation. Drawing, guessing, + scoring, result handling, restart, multiple rounds, timers, drawer rotation, + persistent storage, authentication, and live transport remain out of scope. + +## Requirements *(mandatory)* + +### Functional Requirements + +- **FR-001 (R1)**: The system MUST create a new room with a unique room code each + time a player successfully completes the create-room flow. +- **FR-002 (R1)**: The system MUST add the room creator to the new room immediately + and identify that player as the host. +- **FR-003 (G1)**: The system MUST trim leading and trailing spaces from player names + before validation and storage. +- **FR-004 (G1)**: The system MUST reject empty or whitespace-only player names on + both the create-room and join-room flows with clear feedback before the player + enters a lobby. +- **FR-005 (R2)**: The system MUST reject blank room codes with clear feedback. +- **FR-006 (R2)**: The system MUST reject room codes that do not match the supported + room-code format with clear feedback. +- **FR-007 (R2)**: The system MUST reject room codes that pass format checks but do + not match an active room with clear feedback that the room was not found. +- **FR-008 (R2)**: The system MUST allow a player with a valid trimmed name and a + valid existing room code to join that room successfully. +- **FR-009 (R3)**: The system MUST keep each room's participants, lobby updates, and + start permissions isolated to that room only. +- **FR-010 (R4)**: The lobby player list MUST refresh automatically while a player + remains in the lobby so that newly joined players appear within about two seconds. +- **FR-011 (R4)**: The lobby MUST continue showing the most recent valid player list + if a refresh attempt fails, while also providing clear refresh feedback. +- **FR-012 (R5)**: The system MUST allow only the host to start the game from the + lobby. +- **FR-013 (R5)**: The system MUST prevent the host from starting the game until at + least two players are present in the room. +- **FR-014 (R5)**: The system MUST reject or hide start attempts from non-host + players with clear feedback. +- **FR-015 (R5)**: When the host starts the game successfully, the room MUST leave + the lobby state for all players in that room. + +### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)* + +- **Room**: A joinable multiplayer session identified by a room code, with a host, + a current phase, and a participant roster that stays isolated from other rooms. +- **Participant**: A player identified within a room by a stored display name, + join order or join time, and host or non-host role. +- **Lobby View**: The room-specific snapshot shown to a player while waiting in the + lobby, including participant list, start eligibility, and user-facing messages. + +## Success Criteria *(mandatory)* + +### Measurable Outcomes + +- **SC-001**: 100% of successful create-room attempts place the creator into a new + lobby immediately with a visible room code. +- **SC-002**: 100% of blank or whitespace-only player names are rejected with clear + feedback before a lobby is entered. +- **SC-003**: 100% of blank, malformed, or non-existent room codes are rejected with + clear feedback and do not place the player into a lobby. +- **SC-004**: In manual verification with two browser sessions, a newly joined player + appears in the correct lobby roster within two seconds. +- **SC-005**: In manual verification with two concurrent rooms, no participant or + lobby state from one room appears in the other room. +- **SC-006**: 100% of non-host start attempts are blocked, and 100% of host start + attempts with fewer than two players are blocked with clear feedback. + +## Assumptions + +- Room codes remain short and human-entered rather than hidden behind invitation + links or account-based invitations. +- The system supports one host per room, and the original room creator is that host + for this phase. +- Players stay connected through repeated room refreshes without needing accounts or + persistent identity beyond the current session. +- Starting the game in this phase only needs to move the room out of the lobby and + into the next shared phase; later gameplay behavior is defined in later phases. +- Multiple rounds, timers, drawer rotation, live drawing transport, and data + persistence remain out of scope for this feature. + +## Verification Plan *(mandatory)* + +- **Build Validation**: Verify the changed application still supports the create, + join, lobby, and start flows across all affected app surfaces before handoff. +- **Story Validation**: Validate each user story independently: + create and join with name/code feedback, lobby isolation plus timed roster + refresh, and host-only start with a two-player minimum. +- **Manual Multiplayer Checks**: Use at least two simultaneous player sessions and + at least two separate rooms to confirm lobby refresh timing, room isolation, host + restrictions, and minimum-player start rules. From 1e832bedde3af45b35bf42db8bba65034d9780e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Salauddin Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 09:29:35 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 02/27] speckit init --- .agents/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md | 255 +++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-checklist/SKILL.md | 367 ++++++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md | 249 +++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-constitution/SKILL.md | 152 +++++ .agents/skills/speckit-git-commit/SKILL.md | 53 ++ .agents/skills/speckit-git-feature/SKILL.md | 72 ++ .../skills/speckit-git-initialize/SKILL.md | 54 ++ .agents/skills/speckit-git-remote/SKILL.md | 50 ++ .agents/skills/speckit-git-validate/SKILL.md | 54 ++ .agents/skills/speckit-implement/SKILL.md | 205 ++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-plan/SKILL.md | 147 ++++ .agents/skills/speckit-specify/SKILL.md | 325 +++++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-tasks/SKILL.md | 197 ++++++ .agents/skills/speckit-taskstoissues/SKILL.md | 101 +++ .specify/extensions.yml | 148 ++++ .specify/extensions/.registry | 30 + .specify/extensions/git/README.md | 100 +++ .../git/commands/speckit.git.commit.md | 48 ++ .../git/commands/speckit.git.feature.md | 67 ++ .../git/commands/speckit.git.initialize.md | 49 ++ .../git/commands/speckit.git.remote.md | 45 ++ .../git/commands/speckit.git.validate.md | 49 ++ .specify/extensions/git/config-template.yml | 62 ++ .specify/extensions/git/extension.yml | 140 ++++ .specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml | 62 ++ .../git/scripts/bash/auto-commit.sh | 140 ++++ .../git/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh | 453 ++++++++++++ .../extensions/git/scripts/bash/git-common.sh | 54 ++ .../git/scripts/bash/initialize-repo.sh | 54 ++ .../git/scripts/powershell/auto-commit.ps1 | 169 +++++ .../scripts/powershell/create-new-feature.ps1 | 403 +++++++++++ .../git/scripts/powershell/git-common.ps1 | 51 ++ .../scripts/powershell/initialize-repo.ps1 | 69 ++ .specify/init-options.json | 10 + .specify/integration.json | 15 + .specify/integrations/codex.manifest.json | 16 + .specify/integrations/speckit.manifest.json | 17 + .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh | 190 ++++++ .specify/scripts/bash/common.sh | 645 ++++++++++++++++++ .specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh | 413 +++++++++++ .specify/scripts/bash/setup-plan.sh | 75 ++ .specify/scripts/bash/setup-tasks.sh | 96 +++ .specify/templates/checklist-template.md | 40 ++ .specify/templates/constitution-template.md | 50 ++ .specify/workflows/speckit/workflow.yml | 63 ++ .specify/workflows/workflow-registry.json | 13 + 46 files changed, 6117 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-checklist/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-constitution/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-git-commit/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-git-feature/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-git-initialize/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-git-remote/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-git-validate/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-implement/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-plan/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-specify/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-tasks/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .agents/skills/speckit-taskstoissues/SKILL.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions.yml create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/.registry create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/README.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/commands/speckit.git.commit.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/commands/speckit.git.feature.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/commands/speckit.git.initialize.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/commands/speckit.git.remote.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/commands/speckit.git.validate.md create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/config-template.yml create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/extension.yml create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/git-config.yml create mode 100755 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/bash/auto-commit.sh create mode 100755 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh create mode 100755 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/bash/git-common.sh create mode 100755 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/bash/initialize-repo.sh create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/powershell/auto-commit.ps1 create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/powershell/create-new-feature.ps1 create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/powershell/git-common.ps1 create mode 100644 .specify/extensions/git/scripts/powershell/initialize-repo.ps1 create mode 100644 .specify/init-options.json create mode 100644 .specify/integration.json create mode 100644 .specify/integrations/codex.manifest.json create mode 100644 .specify/integrations/speckit.manifest.json create mode 100755 .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh create mode 100755 .specify/scripts/bash/common.sh create mode 100755 .specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh create mode 100755 .specify/scripts/bash/setup-plan.sh create mode 100755 .specify/scripts/bash/setup-tasks.sh create mode 100644 .specify/templates/checklist-template.md create mode 100644 .specify/templates/constitution-template.md create mode 100644 .specify/workflows/speckit/workflow.yml create mode 100644 .specify/workflows/workflow-registry.json diff --git a/.agents/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d802802 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@ +--- +name: "speckit-analyze" +description: "Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation." +compatibility: "Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory" +metadata: + author: "github-spec-kit" + source: "templates/commands/analyze.md" +--- + + +## User Input + +```text +$ARGUMENTS +``` + +You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). + +## Pre-Execution Checks + +**Check for extension hooks (before analysis)**: +- Check if `.specify/extensions.yml` exists in the project root. +- If it exists, read it and look for entries under the `hooks.before_analyze` key +- If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally +- Filter out hooks where `enabled` is explicitly `false`. Treat hooks without an `enabled` field as enabled by default. +- For each remaining hook, do **not** attempt to interpret or evaluate hook `condition` expressions: + - If the hook has no `condition` field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable + - If the hook defines a non-empty `condition`, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation +- For each executable hook, output the following based on its `optional` flag: + - **Optional hook** (`optional: true`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Command: `/{command}` + Description: {description} + + Prompt: {prompt} + To execute: `/{command}` + ``` + - **Mandatory hook** (`optional: false`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Executing: `/{command}` + EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} + + Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Goal. + ``` +- If no hooks are registered or `.specify/extensions.yml` does not exist, skip silently + +## Goal + +Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items across the three core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/speckit-tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`. + +## Operating Constraints + +**STRICTLY READ-ONLY**: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually). + +**Constitution Authority**: The project constitution (`.specify/memory/constitution.md`) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution conflicts are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the spec, plan, or tasks—not dilution, reinterpretation, or silent ignoring of the principle. If a principle itself needs to change, that must occur in a separate, explicit constitution update outside `/speckit-analyze`. + +## Execution Steps + +### 1. Initialize Analysis Context + +Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths: + +- SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md +- PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md +- TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md + +Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command). +For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot"). + +### 2. Load Artifacts (Progressive Disclosure) + +Load only the minimal necessary context from each artifact: + +**From spec.md:** + +- Overview/Context +- Functional Requirements +- Success Criteria (measurable outcomes — e.g., performance, security, availability, user success, business impact) +- User Stories +- Edge Cases (if present) + +**From plan.md:** + +- Architecture/stack choices +- Data Model references +- Phases +- Technical constraints + +**From tasks.md:** + +- Task IDs +- Descriptions +- Phase grouping +- Parallel markers [P] +- Referenced file paths + +**From constitution:** + +- Load `.specify/memory/constitution.md` for principle validation + +### 3. Build Semantic Models + +Create internal representations (do not include raw artifacts in output): + +- **Requirements inventory**: For each Functional Requirement (FR-###) and Success Criterion (SC-###), record a stable key. Use the explicit FR-/SC- identifier as the primary key when present, and optionally also derive an imperative-phrase slug for readability (e.g., "User can upload file" → `user-can-upload-file`). Include only Success Criteria items that require buildable work (e.g., load-testing infrastructure, security audit tooling), and exclude post-launch outcome metrics and business KPIs (e.g., "Reduce support tickets by 50%"). +- **User story/action inventory**: Discrete user actions with acceptance criteria +- **Task coverage mapping**: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases) +- **Constitution rule set**: Extract principle names and MUST/SHOULD normative statements + +### 4. Detection Passes (Token-Efficient Analysis) + +Focus on high-signal findings. Limit to 50 findings total; aggregate remainder in overflow summary. + +#### A. Duplication Detection + +- Identify near-duplicate requirements +- Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation + +#### B. Ambiguity Detection + +- Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria +- Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, ``, etc.) + +#### C. Underspecification + +- Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome +- User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment +- Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec/plan + +#### D. Constitution Alignment + +- Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle +- Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution + +#### E. Coverage Gaps + +- Requirements with zero associated tasks +- Tasks with no mapped requirement/story +- Success Criteria requiring buildable work (performance, security, availability) not reflected in tasks + +#### F. Inconsistency + +- Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files) +- Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa) +- Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note) +- Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue) + +### 5. Severity Assignment + +Use this heuristic to prioritize findings: + +- **CRITICAL**: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality +- **HIGH**: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion +- **MEDIUM**: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case +- **LOW**: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order + +### 6. Produce Compact Analysis Report + +Output a Markdown report (no file writes) with the following structure: + +## Specification Analysis Report + +| ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation | +|----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------| +| A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version | + +(Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.) + +**Coverage Summary Table:** + +| Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes | +|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------| + +**Constitution Alignment Issues:** (if any) + +**Unmapped Tasks:** (if any) + +**Metrics:** + +- Total Requirements +- Total Tasks +- Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task) +- Ambiguity Count +- Duplication Count +- Critical Issues Count + +### 7. Provide Next Actions + +At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block: + +- If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `/speckit-implement` +- If only LOW/MEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions +- Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., "Run /speckit-specify with refinement", "Run /speckit-plan to adjust architecture", "Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'" + +### 8. Offer Remediation + +Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.) + +### 9. Check for extension hooks + +After reporting, check if `.specify/extensions.yml` exists in the project root. +- If it exists, read it and look for entries under the `hooks.after_analyze` key +- If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally +- Filter out hooks where `enabled` is explicitly `false`. Treat hooks without an `enabled` field as enabled by default. +- For each remaining hook, do **not** attempt to interpret or evaluate hook `condition` expressions: + - If the hook has no `condition` field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable + - If the hook defines a non-empty `condition`, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation +- For each executable hook, output the following based on its `optional` flag: + - **Optional hook** (`optional: true`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Optional Hook**: {extension} + Command: `/{command}` + Description: {description} + + Prompt: {prompt} + To execute: `/{command}` + ``` + - **Mandatory hook** (`optional: false`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Automatic Hook**: {extension} + Executing: `/{command}` + EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} + ``` +- If no hooks are registered or `.specify/extensions.yml` does not exist, skip silently + +## Operating Principles + +### Context Efficiency + +- **Minimal high-signal tokens**: Focus on actionable findings, not exhaustive documentation +- **Progressive disclosure**: Load artifacts incrementally; don't dump all content into analysis +- **Token-efficient output**: Limit findings table to 50 rows; summarize overflow +- **Deterministic results**: Rerunning without changes should produce consistent IDs and counts + +### Analysis Guidelines + +- **NEVER modify files** (this is read-only analysis) +- **NEVER hallucinate missing sections** (if absent, report them accurately) +- **Prioritize constitution violations** (these are always CRITICAL) +- **Use examples over exhaustive rules** (cite specific instances, not generic patterns) +- **Report zero issues gracefully** (emit success report with coverage statistics) + +## Context + +$ARGUMENTS diff --git a/.agents/skills/speckit-checklist/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/speckit-checklist/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c589633 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/speckit-checklist/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ +--- +name: "speckit-checklist" +description: "Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements." +compatibility: "Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory" +metadata: + author: "github-spec-kit" + source: "templates/commands/checklist.md" +--- + + +## Checklist Purpose: "Unit Tests for English" + +**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) +- ✅ "Are accessibility requirements defined for keyboard navigation?" (coverage) +- ✅ "Does the spec define what happens when logo image fails to load?" (edge cases) + +**Metaphor**: If your spec is code written in English, the checklist is its unit test suite. You're testing whether the requirements are well-written, complete, unambiguous, and ready for implementation - NOT whether the implementation works. + +## User Input + +```text +$ARGUMENTS +``` + +You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). + +## Pre-Execution Checks + +**Check for extension hooks (before checklist generation)**: +- Check if `.specify/extensions.yml` exists in the project root. +- If it exists, read it and look for entries under the `hooks.before_checklist` key +- If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally +- Filter out hooks where `enabled` is explicitly `false`. Treat hooks without an `enabled` field as enabled by default. +- For each remaining hook, do **not** attempt to interpret or evaluate hook `condition` expressions: + - If the hook has no `condition` field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable + - If the hook defines a non-empty `condition`, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation +- For each executable hook, output the following based on its `optional` flag: + - **Optional hook** (`optional: true`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Command: `/{command}` + Description: {description} + + Prompt: {prompt} + To execute: `/{command}` + ``` + - **Mandatory hook** (`optional: false`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Executing: `/{command}` + EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} + + Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Execution Steps. + ``` +- If no hooks are registered or `.specify/extensions.yml` does not exist, skip silently + +## Execution Steps + +1. **Setup**: Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json` from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. + - All file paths must be absolute. + - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot"). + +2. **Clarify intent (dynamic)**: Derive up to THREE initial contextual clarifying questions (no pre-baked catalog). They MUST: + - Be generated from the user's phrasing + extracted signals from spec/plan/tasks + - Only ask about information that materially changes checklist content + - Be skipped individually if already unambiguous in `$ARGUMENTS` + - Prefer precision over breadth + + Generation algorithm: + 1. Extract signals: feature domain keywords (e.g., auth, latency, UX, API), risk indicators ("critical", "must", "compliance"), stakeholder hints ("QA", "review", "security team"), and explicit deliverables ("a11y", "rollback", "contracts"). + 2. Cluster signals into candidate focus areas (max 4) ranked by relevance. + 3. Identify probable audience & timing (author, reviewer, QA, release) if not explicit. + 4. Detect missing dimensions: scope breadth, depth/rigor, risk emphasis, exclusion boundaries, measurable acceptance criteria. + 5. Formulate questions chosen from these archetypes: + - Scope refinement (e.g., "Should this include integration touchpoints with X and Y or stay limited to local module correctness?") + - Risk prioritization (e.g., "Which of these potential risk areas should receive mandatory gating checks?") + - Depth calibration (e.g., "Is this a lightweight pre-commit sanity list or a formal release gate?") + - Audience framing (e.g., "Will this be used by the author only or peers during PR review?") + - Boundary exclusion (e.g., "Should we explicitly exclude performance tuning items this round?") + - Scenario class gap (e.g., "No recovery flows detected—are rollback / partial failure paths in scope?") + + Question formatting rules: + - If presenting options, generate a compact table with columns: Option | Candidate | Why It Matters + - Limit to A–E options maximum; omit table if a free-form answer is clearer + - Never ask the user to restate what they already said + - Avoid speculative categories (no hallucination). If uncertain, ask explicitly: "Confirm whether X belongs in scope." + + Defaults when interaction impossible: + - Depth: Standard + - Audience: Reviewer (PR) if code-related; Author otherwise + - Focus: Top 2 relevance clusters + + Output the questions (label Q1/Q2/Q3). After answers: if ≥2 scenario classes (Alternate / Exception / Recovery / Non-Functional domain) remain unclear, you MAY ask up to TWO more targeted follow‑ups (Q4/Q5) with a one-line justification each (e.g., "Unresolved recovery path risk"). Do not exceed five total questions. Skip escalation if user explicitly declines more. + +3. **Understand user request**: Combine `$ARGUMENTS` + clarifying answers: + - Derive checklist theme (e.g., security, review, deploy, ux) + - Consolidate explicit must-have items mentioned by user + - Map focus selections to category scaffolding + - Infer any missing context from spec/plan/tasks (do NOT hallucinate) + +4. **Load feature context**: Read from FEATURE_DIR: + - 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 + - Use progressive disclosure: add follow-on retrieval only if gaps detected + - If source docs are large, generate interim summary items instead of embedding raw text + +5. **Generate checklist** - Create "Unit Tests for Requirements": + - 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` + - File handling behavior: + - If file does NOT exist: Create new file and number items starting from CHK001 + - If file exists: Append new items to existing file, continuing from the last CHK ID (e.g., if last item is CHK015, start new items at CHK016) + - Never delete or replace existing checklist content - always preserve and append + + **CORE PRINCIPLE - Test the Requirements, Not the Implementation**: + Every checklist item MUST evaluate the REQUIREMENTS THEMSELVES for: + - **Completeness**: Are all necessary requirements present? + - **Clarity**: Are requirements unambiguous and specific? + - **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?) + - **Requirement Consistency** (Do requirements align without conflicts?) + - **Acceptance Criteria Quality** (Are success criteria measurable?) + - **Scenario Coverage** (Are all flows/cases addressed?) + - **Edge Case Coverage** (Are boundary conditions defined?) + - **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] + - "Are hover state requirements consistent across all interactive elements?" [Consistency] + - "Are keyboard navigation requirements defined for all interactive UI?" [Coverage] + - "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 + - Focus on what's WRITTEN (or not written) in the spec/plan + - 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]" + + **Scenario Classification & Coverage** (Requirements Quality Focus): + - Check if requirements exist for: Primary, Alternate, Exception/Error, Recovery, Non-Functional scenarios + - For each scenario class, ask: "Are [scenario type] requirements complete, clear, and consistent?" + - If scenario class missing: "Are [scenario type] requirements intentionally excluded or missing? [Gap]" + - Include resilience/rollback when state mutation occurs: "Are rollback requirements defined for migration failures? [Gap]" + + **Traceability Requirements**: + - MINIMUM: ≥80% of items MUST include at least one traceability reference + - Each item should reference: spec section `[Spec §X.Y]`, or use markers: `[Gap]`, `[Ambiguity]`, `[Conflict]`, `[Assumption]` + - If no ID system exists: "Is a requirement & acceptance criteria ID scheme established? [Traceability]" + + **Surface & Resolve Issues** (Requirements Quality Problems): + Ask questions about the requirements themselves: + - Ambiguities: "Is the term 'fast' quantified with specific metrics? [Ambiguity, Spec §NFR-1]" + - Conflicts: "Do navigation requirements conflict between §FR-10 and §FR-10a? [Conflict]" + - Assumptions: "Is the assumption of 'always available podcast API' validated? [Assumption]" + - Dependencies: "Are external podcast API requirements documented? [Dependency, Gap]" + - Missing definitions: "Is 'visual hierarchy' defined with measurable criteria? [Gap]" + + **Content Consolidation**: + - Soft cap: If raw candidate items > 40, prioritize by risk/impact + - Merge near-duplicates checking the same requirement aspect + - If >5 low-impact edge cases, create one item: "Are edge cases X, Y, Z addressed in requirements? [Coverage]" + + **🚫 ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED** - These make it an implementation test, not a requirements test: + - ❌ Any item starting with "Verify", "Test", "Confirm", "Check" + implementation behavior + - ❌ References to code execution, user actions, system behavior + - ❌ "Displays correctly", "works properly", "functions as expected" + - ❌ "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?" + - ✅ "Are requirements consistent between [section A] and [section B]?" + - ✅ "Can [requirement] be objectively measured/verified?" + - ✅ "Are [edge cases/scenarios] addressed in requirements?" + - ✅ "Does the spec define [missing aspect]?" + +6. **Structure Reference**: Generate the checklist following the canonical template in `.specify/templates/checklist-template.md` for title, meta section, category headings, and ID formatting. If template is unavailable, use: H1 title, purpose/created meta lines, `##` category sections containing `- [ ] CHK### ` lines with globally incrementing IDs starting at CHK001. + +7. **Report**: Output full path to checklist file, item count, and summarize whether the run created a new file or appended to an existing one. Summarize: + - Focus areas selected + - Depth level + - Actor/timing + - Any explicit user-specified must-have items incorporated + +**Important**: Each `/speckit-checklist` command invocation uses a short, descriptive checklist filename and either creates a new file or appends to an existing one. This allows: + +- Multiple checklists of different types (e.g., `ux.md`, `test.md`, `security.md`) +- Simple, memorable filenames that indicate checklist purpose +- Easy identification and navigation in the `checklists/` folder + +To avoid clutter, use descriptive types and clean up obsolete checklists when done. + +## Example Checklist Types & Sample Items + +**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]" +- "Are accessibility requirements specified for all interactive elements? [Coverage, Gap]" +- "Is fallback behavior defined when images fail to load? [Edge Case, Gap]" +- "Can 'prominent display' be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-4]" + +**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]" +- "Are retry/timeout requirements defined for external dependencies? [Coverage, Gap]" +- "Is versioning strategy documented in requirements? [Gap]" + +**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]" +- "Can performance requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability]" +- "Are degradation requirements defined for high-load scenarios? [Edge Case, Gap]" + +**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]" +- "Are security requirements consistent with compliance obligations? [Consistency]" +- "Are security failure/breach response requirements defined? [Gap, Exception Flow]" + +## Anti-Examples: What NOT To Do + +**❌ WRONG - These test implementation, not requirements:** + +```markdown +- [ ] CHK001 - Verify landing page displays 3 episode cards [Spec §FR-001] +- [ ] CHK002 - Test hover states work correctly on desktop [Spec §FR-003] +- [ ] CHK003 - Confirm logo click navigates to home page [Spec §FR-010] +- [ ] CHK004 - Check that related episodes section shows 3-5 items [Spec §FR-005] +``` + +**✅ CORRECT - These test requirements quality:** + +```markdown +- [ ] CHK001 - Are the number and layout of featured episodes explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001] +- [ ] CHK002 - Are hover state requirements consistently defined for all interactive elements? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003] +- [ ] CHK003 - Are navigation requirements clear for all clickable brand elements? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010] +- [ ] CHK004 - Is the selection criteria for related episodes documented? [Gap, Spec §FR-005] +- [ ] CHK005 - Are loading state requirements defined for asynchronous episode data? [Gap] +- [ ] CHK006 - Can "visual hierarchy" requirements be objectively measured? [Measurability, Spec §FR-001] +``` + +**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?" +- Correct: "Is X clearly specified?" + +## Post-Execution Checks + +**Check for extension hooks (after checklist generation)**: +Check if `.specify/extensions.yml` exists in the project root. +- If it exists, read it and look for entries under the `hooks.after_checklist` key +- If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally +- Filter out hooks where `enabled` is explicitly `false`. Treat hooks without an `enabled` field as enabled by default. +- For each remaining hook, do **not** attempt to interpret or evaluate hook `condition` expressions: + - If the hook has no `condition` field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable + - If the hook defines a non-empty `condition`, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation +- For each executable hook, output the following based on its `optional` flag: + - **Optional hook** (`optional: true`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Optional Hook**: {extension} + Command: `/{command}` + Description: {description} + + Prompt: {prompt} + To execute: `/{command}` + ``` + - **Mandatory hook** (`optional: false`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Automatic Hook**: {extension} + Executing: `/{command}` + EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} + ``` +- If no hooks are registered or `.specify/extensions.yml` does not exist, skip silently diff --git a/.agents/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..70a8a07 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agents/skills/speckit-clarify/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,249 @@ +--- +name: "speckit-clarify" +description: "Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec." +compatibility: "Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory" +metadata: + author: "github-spec-kit" + source: "templates/commands/clarify.md" +--- + + +## User Input + +```text +$ARGUMENTS +``` + +You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). + +## Pre-Execution Checks + +**Check for extension hooks (before clarification)**: +- Check if `.specify/extensions.yml` exists in the project root. +- If it exists, read it and look for entries under the `hooks.before_clarify` key +- If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally +- Filter out hooks where `enabled` is explicitly `false`. Treat hooks without an `enabled` field as enabled by default. +- For each remaining hook, do **not** attempt to interpret or evaluate hook `condition` expressions: + - If the hook has no `condition` field, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable + - If the hook defines a non-empty `condition`, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation +- For each executable hook, output the following based on its `optional` flag: + - **Optional hook** (`optional: true`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Command: `/{command}` + Description: {description} + + Prompt: {prompt} + To execute: `/{command}` + ``` + - **Mandatory hook** (`optional: false`): + ``` + ## Extension Hooks + + **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} + Executing: `/{command}` + EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} + + Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline. + ``` +- If no hooks are registered or `.specify/extensions.yml` does not exist, skip silently + +## Outline + +Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file. + +Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking `/speckit-plan`. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases. + +Execution steps: + +1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only` from repo root **once** (combined `--json --paths-only` mode / `-Json -PathsOnly`). Parse minimal JSON payload fields: + - `FEATURE_DIR` + - `FEATURE_SPEC` + - (Optionally capture `IMPL_PLAN`, `TASKS` for future chained flows.) + - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run `/speckit-specify` or verify feature branch environment. + - For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot"). + +2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked). + + Functional Scope & Behavior: + - Core user goals & success criteria + - Explicit out-of-scope declarations + - User roles / personas differentiation + + Domain & Data Model: + - Entities, attributes, relationships + - Identity & uniqueness rules + - Lifecycle/state transitions + - Data volume / scale assumptions + + Interaction & UX Flow: + - Critical user journeys / sequences + - Error/empty/loading states + - Accessibility or localization notes + + Non-Functional Quality Attributes: + - Performance (latency, throughput targets) + - Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits) + - Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations) + - Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals) + - Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions) + - Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any) + + Integration & External Dependencies: + - External services/APIs and failure modes + - Data import/export formats + - Protocol/versioning assumptions + + Edge Cases & Failure Handling: + - Negative scenarios + - Rate limiting / throttling + - Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits) + + Constraints & Tradeoffs: + - Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting) + - Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives + + Terminology & Consistency: + - Canonical glossary terms + - Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms + + Completion Signals: + - Acceptance criteria testability + - Measurable Definition of Done style indicators + + Misc / Placeholders: + - TODO markers / unresolved decisions + - Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification + + For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless: + - Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy + - Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally) + +3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints: + - Maximum of 5 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. + +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: + - 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] - ` + - Then render all options as a Markdown table: + + | Option | Description | + |--------|-------------| + | A |