--- name: spec-dd description: > This skill should be used when the user asks to "write specifications", "create test specifications", "specification-driven development", "spec-first", "behavioral specs", "derive test scenarios", "test implementation specification", "check specification alignment", "review specs", "verify implementation", or "spec-dd". Also triggers when the user mentions "SDD", "SDD-TDD", "spec-driven", "behavioral testing workflow", "test-first design", or asks about writing specifications before code, deriving tests from specs, or verifying implementation against specifications. Supports a full workflow walkthrough or focusing on individual phases. disable-model-invocation: false --- # Specification-Driven Development Orchestrate a spec-first development workflow: behavioral specification, test scenario derivation, test implementation planning, test implementation, feature implementation, and cross-artifact alignment review. The skill guides writing behavioral specifications, derives test scenarios, plans test implementation approaches, and verifies alignment across all artifacts and code. Quality gates between phases are advisory — the skill flags issues and recommends addressing them, but the user can override and proceed. ## Commands | Command | Phase | Reference | |---------|-------|-----------| | `/spec-dd` | Auto-detect phase, assess state, recommend next step | All references | | `/spec-dd:spec` | Behavioral Specification | `references/specification.md` | | `/spec-dd:test` | Test Specification | `references/test-specification.md` | | `/spec-dd:test-impl` | Test Implementation Specification | `references/test-implementation-specification.md` | | `/spec-dd:verify` | Implementation Verification | `references/verify.md` | | `/spec-dd:review` | Alignment Review | `references/review.md` | All commands accept an optional feature name argument (e.g., `/spec-dd:spec user-auth`). `/spec-dd:verify` also accepts a spec file path as its first argument (e.g., `/spec-dd:verify specifications.md chat-ui`). This allows verification against any spec file, including informal ones not created through the spec-dd workflow. If no feature name is provided and multiple features exist, list available features and ask the user to choose. ## Artifacts All artifacts live in `docs/specs/` with one set of files per feature: | Artifact | Filename | |----------|----------| | Behavioral Specification | `docs/specs/-specification.md` | | Test Specification | `docs/specs/-test-specification.md` | | Test Implementation Specification | `docs/specs/-test-implementation-specification.md` | | Implementation Verification | `docs/specs/-verification.md` | | Implementation Review | `docs/specs/-implementation-review.md` | ## First Steps When any command is invoked: 1. **Read the relevant reference file** from `references/` BEFORE doing anything else. - `/spec-dd:spec` -> read `references/specification.md` - `/spec-dd:test` -> read `references/test-specification.md` - `/spec-dd:test-impl` -> read `references/test-implementation-specification.md` - `/spec-dd:verify` -> read `references/verify.md` - `/spec-dd:review` -> read `references/review.md` - `/spec-dd` -> read whichever reference applies to the recommended phase 2. **Auto-detect project language** by scanning for manifest files: - `package.json` (JavaScript/TypeScript) - `requirements.txt`, `pyproject.toml` (Python) - `go.mod` (Go) - `Cargo.toml` (Rust) - `pom.xml`, `build.gradle` (Java/Kotlin) - Use the detected language/ecosystem to inform testing frameworks, patterns, idioms, and handoff prompts throughout the workflow. 3. **For `/spec-dd` (router):** Follow the auto-detect router logic below. 4. **For `/spec-dd:`:** Check whether prior-phase artifacts exist. If gaps are found, advise the user which earlier phase to complete first, but do not block — proceed if the user chooses to continue. ## Phase 1: Behavioral Specification (`/spec-dd:spec`) **Reference:** Read `references/specification.md` before starting. **Purpose:** Define what the system does — behavioral contracts, not implementation details. **Workflow:** 1. Guide the user through creating or reviewing the behavioral specification for the selected feature. 2. Use selectable options plus a free-text escape for every question. Ask 1-3 questions per turn, grouped thematically. Summarize captured answers before moving on. 3. Review for ambiguity: - Vague language ("fast", "secure", "easy", "simple", "efficient") - Missing edge cases and boundary conditions - Undefined terms and implicit assumptions - Unmeasurable acceptance criteria 4. Mark any unresolved items with `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]`. 5. Produce or update `docs/specs/-specification.md`. **Advisory gate:** No unresolved `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` markers before proceeding to Phase 2. **Artifact template:** ```markdown # - Behavioral Specification ## Objective What this feature does and why it exists. ## User Stories & Acceptance Criteria Numbered user stories, each with measurable acceptance criteria. ## Constraints Technical, business, or regulatory constraints. ## Edge Cases Boundary conditions, error states, unusual inputs. ## Non-Goals What this feature explicitly does NOT do. ## Open Questions Items marked [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] that must be resolved. ``` ## Phase 2: Test Specification (`/spec-dd:test`) **Reference:** Read `references/test-specification.md` before starting. **Purpose:** Derive test scenarios from the behavioral spec only — no implementation knowledge. **Pre-check:** Verify that `-specification.md` exists. If it does not, advise the user to complete Phase 1 first. If the user chooses to proceed anyway, note the risk and continue. **Workflow:** 1. Derive Given/When/Then scenarios from each acceptance criterion in the behavioral specification. 2. Enforce one behavior per scenario, one action per step. 3. Build a coverage matrix mapping every spec requirement to test scenarios. 4. Language-aware review: ensure scenarios are realistic and testable for the project's detected testing ecosystem. 5. Check traceability: every acceptance criterion must have at least one test scenario. 6. Produce or update `docs/specs/-test-specification.md`. **Advisory gate:** Full traceability between spec requirements and test scenarios before proceeding to Phase 3. **Artifact template:** ```markdown # - Test Specification ## Coverage Matrix Table mapping each acceptance criterion to its test scenarios. ## Test Scenarios Given/When/Then format. Grouped by user story or functional area. ## Edge Case Scenarios Boundary conditions derived from the specification's edge cases section. ## Traceability Summary confirming every acceptance criterion is covered. ``` ## Phase 3: Test Implementation Specification (`/spec-dd:test-impl`) **Reference:** Read `references/test-implementation-specification.md` before starting. **Purpose:** Map every test scenario to a technical approach for implementing it as actual test code. **Pre-check:** Verify that `-test-specification.md` exists. If it does not, advise the user to complete Phase 2 first. Proceed if the user overrides. **Workflow:** 1. Guide the user through describing the technical approach for implementing each test scenario as actual test code. 2. Use language-aware patterns: test framework selection, fixture strategies, mock/stub approaches, test file organization. 3. Map every test scenario from the test specification to specific test functions, test classes, or test modules. 4. Describe shared fixtures, test data factories, and setup/teardown strategies. 5. Verify completeness: every Given/When/Then scenario has a corresponding test implementation approach. 6. Produce or update `docs/specs/-test-implementation-specification.md`. **Advisory gate:** Every test scenario mapped to a test implementation approach before proceeding to Phase 4. **Artifact template:** ```markdown # - Test Implementation Specification ## Test Framework & Conventions Detected stack, test framework, test runner, conventions. ## Test Structure How tests are organized: files, classes/modules, naming conventions. ## Test Scenario Mapping Map each test scenario to a test function/method with setup and assertion strategy. ## Fixtures & Test Data Shared fixtures, factories, test data approach, setup/teardown. ## Alignment Check Confirmation that every test scenario has a test implementation approach. ``` ## Phase 4: Test Implementation (Handoff) **Purpose:** Actual test code is written by a coding agent following the test implementation specification. Tests must initially FAIL because the feature code does not exist yet. This skill does NOT write test code. **Workflow:** 1. Announce readiness for test implementation. 2. Summarize what the test implementation specification contains and where it lives (`docs/specs/-test-implementation-specification.md`). 3. Offer to propose a prompt for the coding agent. The prompt should: - Reference both the test specification and the test implementation specification - Instruct the agent to implement tests using the project's test framework - Instruct the agent to verify that all tests FAIL (since the feature is not yet implemented) - Specify the detected language and ecosystem 4. Wait for test code to be written and verified as failing before proceeding. ## Phase 5: Feature Implementation (Handoff) **Purpose:** Production code is written to make all tests pass. This skill does NOT write implementation code. **Workflow:** 1. Announce readiness for feature implementation. 2. Summarize that tests exist, are failing, and define the expected behavior. 3. Offer to propose a prompt for the coding agent. The prompt should: - Reference the behavioral specification and the test files - Instruct the agent to write code that makes all tests pass without modifying any test files - Specify the detected language and ecosystem 4. Wait for implementation code to be written before proceeding. ## Phase 6: Implementation Verification (`/spec-dd:verify`) **Reference:** Read `references/verify.md` before starting. **Purpose:** Check whether the implementation satisfies the specification at the requirement level. Unlike the review phase (which checks artifact alignment), verification answers: "Did we build what the spec says?" **Key difference from review:** Verification works with any spec file — including informal documents not created through spec-dd. It produces a requirement-level PASS/FAIL checklist, not a severity-classified alignment report. **Pre-check:** Implementation code must exist. If no code has been written yet, advise the user to complete Phase 5 first. **Workflow:** 1. **Identify the spec file.** Use the argument if provided (e.g., `/spec-dd:verify specifications.md`). Otherwise, look for `docs/specs/-specification.md`. If neither exists, ask the user to provide the spec file path. 2. **Extract requirements.** Read the spec file and identify every testable requirement using the heuristics in `references/verify.md`: numbered items, acceptance criteria, RFC-style keywords (MUST/SHALL), and behavioral descriptions. Assign each an ID (R01, R02, ...). 3. **Verify by reading code.** For each requirement, search the codebase for implementing code. Verify that the code logic matches the spec's behavioral description. Mark as PASS, FAIL, or PARTIAL with a one-line evidence note citing file path and line number. 4. **Run targeted tests only when needed.** Execute tests only when a requirement describes runtime behavior that cannot be verified by reading, when the user explicitly asks, or when a read-based check is inconclusive. Never re-run slow or non-deterministic tests without asking. 5. **Handle non-deterministic tests.** If a requirement is tested by a non-deterministic test (LLM-dependent, network-dependent), verify the test exists and exercises the correct code path. Mark the requirement based on code reading, not test pass/fail. 6. **Produce verification report** at `docs/specs/-verification.md` (or `docs/specs/verify--.md` if no feature name). 7. **If gaps are found**, list specific next steps: which requirements need implementation, which need fixes (with file paths), whether to revisit the spec (if requirements are ambiguous). **Advisory gate:** All requirements PASS or PARTIAL (no FAIL) before proceeding to Phase 7 (Review). **Artifact template:** ```markdown # Verification: | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Spec file | `` | | Feature | | | Date | | ## Requirements | # | Requirement | Status | Evidence | |---|-------------|--------|----------| | R01 | | PASS | `file:line` — description | | R02 | | FAIL | Expected X, found nothing | | R03 | | PARTIAL | `file:line` — works but missing Y | ## Summary X/Y PASS, Z FAIL, W PARTIAL ## Gaps Requiring Action | # | Requirement | Issue | Suggested Fix | |---|-------------|-------|---------------| | R02 | | Not implemented | | ## Notes Observations about non-deterministic tests, environment issues, or spec ambiguities. ``` ## Phase 7: Review (`/spec-dd:review`) **Reference:** Read `references/review.md` before starting. **Purpose:** Verify alignment across all artifacts and actual code. **Pre-check:** Check that all three specification documents exist for the feature: `-specification.md`, `-test-specification.md`, and `-test-implementation-specification.md`. Flag any that are missing but proceed with what is available. **Workflow:** 1. **Document alignment:** Cross-check the three specification documents against each other. Identify inconsistencies, coverage gaps, and unresolved ambiguities. 2. **Code alignment:** Scan actual test files and implementation source code in the project. Compare against the specification documents. Identify: - Test scenarios in the test spec without corresponding test code - Test implementation approaches in the test impl spec without corresponding test code - Undocumented behavior (code not covered by any specification) 3. **Test execution:** Detect the project's test runner and execute all available tests locally: - Check for: Makefile targets, justfile recipes, package.json scripts (test, test:unit, test:integration), pytest, go test, cargo test, mvn test, gradle test, and similar - Run the detected test command - Report pass/fail results with failure details 4. **Produce review report** at `docs/specs/-implementation-review.md`. 5. If issues are found, recommend which phase to revisit and why. **Artifact template:** ```markdown # - Implementation Review ## Specification Alignment Cross-check between the three spec documents. ## Code Alignment Actual test code vs test specification. Actual implementation vs implementation specification. ## Test Execution Test runner detected, command used, pass/fail results, failure details if any. ## Coverage Report Gaps, misalignments, unresolved items. ## Status Pass/fail summary per check. ## Recommendations Next steps if issues are found. ``` ## Auto-Detect Router (`/spec-dd`) When `/spec-dd` is invoked (without a specific phase subcommand): 1. **Scan `docs/specs/`** for `*-specification.md` files to discover features. If the directory does not exist or is empty, ask the user for a feature name and start at Phase 1. 2. **Select feature:** Use the argument if provided. Otherwise, list discovered features and ask the user to choose, or let them name a new feature. 3. **Assess phase status** for the selected feature: - Does `-specification.md` exist? Any `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` markers? - Does `-test-specification.md` exist? Does it cover all acceptance criteria from the behavioral spec? - Do actual test files exist in the project? Do they align with the test spec? - Does `-test-implementation-specification.md` exist? Does it address all test scenarios? - Do actual test files exist? Do they fail (feature not yet implemented)? - Does actual implementation code exist? Do the tests pass? - Does `-verification.md` exist? Are all requirements PASS or PARTIAL? - Does `-implementation-review.md` exist? Is it current? 4. **Report current state:** Which phases are complete, which have gaps, which have not been started. 5. **Recommend next action:** Either fix gaps in an earlier phase or proceed to the next incomplete phase. 6. **If at a handoff phase** (Phase 3 or Phase 5): Offer to propose a prompt for the coding agent. ## Quality Gates All gates are **advisory** — the skill flags issues and recommends addressing them, but the user can override and proceed. | Transition | Gate Check | |------------|-----------| | Spec -> Test Spec | No unresolved `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` markers | | Test Spec -> Test Impl Spec | Full traceability: every acceptance criterion mapped to test scenarios | | Test Impl Spec -> Test Impl | Every test scenario mapped to a test implementation approach | | Test Impl -> Feature Impl | Test files exist and all tests FAIL (feature not yet implemented) | | Feature Impl -> Verify | Implementation code exists | | Verify -> Review | All requirements PASS or PARTIAL (no FAIL) | | Review -> Done | All checks pass in the review report, including test execution | ## Iterative Workflow Support The workflow supports non-linear progression: - The auto-detect router can recommend going back to an earlier phase when it finds gaps or inconsistencies. - Any phase can be re-entered at any time via explicit subcommands (`/spec-dd:spec`, `/spec-dd:test`, etc.). - Artifacts are updated in place — the skill works with whatever state exists. - Starting rough and iterating is explicitly supported: write a quick behavioral spec, rough out test scenarios, refine both, then proceed. - Review findings may reveal issues that require revisiting specification, test specification, or test implementation specification phases. ## Pragmatism Guidelines These are guidelines, not laws. Apply judgment: - **Scale to project size.** A small utility feature needs a lighter touch than a complex distributed system feature. Do not demand exhaustive specs for a 20-line function. - **Gates are advisory.** Flag issues and recommend addressing them. If the user acknowledges a gap and wants to proceed, respect the override. - **Guide, do not block.** The skill's role is to surface gaps, ambiguities, and misalignments. It is not a gatekeeper — it is a navigator. - **Acknowledge trade-offs.** When the user makes a conscious decision to skip or simplify a phase, note it and move on. Do not repeatedly insist. - **Language idioms matter.** Adapt patterns, terminology, and recommendations to the project's detected language and ecosystem. A Go project and a Python project have different testing conventions, architectural patterns, and file structures.