Bug → spec protocol. When a bug is found or a test fails, trace the cause, decide whether a new §V invariant would catch recurrence, append to §B. This is the one non-obvious thing SDD does that plan-then-execute doesn't. Triggers on test failure, bug report, post-mortem, or explicit user ask.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Plan-then-execute fixes the code & forgets. SDD fixes the code AND edits spec so recurrence is impossible. That edit is backprop.
/build verification./check flags VIOLATE with root cause found.Read failure output / bug report. Find exact file:line of wrong behavior. Name root cause in one caveman sentence.
Ask three questions:
Draft the spec change. Never skip §B; §V/§I/§T are case-by-case.
Template:
§B row: B<next>|<date>|<root cause>|V<N>
§V line: V<next>: <testable rule that would have caught it>
Example:
§B row: B3|2026-04-20|refund job ran twice on retry|V7
§V line: V7: ∀ refund → idempotency key check before charge reversal
New invariant without test = lie. Add failing test first.
Name test so it cites the invariant: TestV7_RefundIdempotent.
Fix code. Run test. Must pass. Run full suite. Must not regress.
Commit spec edit + test + code fix together.
Commit msg: backprop §B.<n> + §V.<N>: <one-line cause>.
! hold over ⊥ forbid).Bad: V8: code should be correct. Good: V8: ∀ pg_query ! params interpolated via driver, ⊥ string concat.
i++ vs i-- in throwaway).Still append §B entry — record that this failure mode was considered. Future bug with same smell → §B search shows precedent.
Every backprop run produces:
No dashboards. No log files. SPEC.md + git is the full history.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Caveman encoding for SPEC.md and spec-adjacent writes. Loaded by /spec, /build, /check. Cuts tokens ~75% vs prose while staying precise. Triggers on any write to SPEC.md or when user says "caveman", "compress this", "be brief".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Read-only drift detector. Diffs SPEC.md against current code and reports violations grouped by severity. Writes nothing — suggests remedies via the spec or build skills but never invokes them. Triggers when the user asks to check drift, audit the spec, verify invariants, or ask whether code still matches the spec. Phrasings: "check drift", "audit the spec", "does the code still match §V", "check invariants", "spec vs code".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Optional design-improvement pass for when you have spare usage to drain. Finds the shallowest modules in the code the spec touches, researches a deeper design, and proposes refactors that shrink interfaces and hide decisions — behavior held constant, tests green before and after. Proposes §I/§V/§T edits, never silent rewrites. Triggers when the user says "deepen this", "improve the design", "this module feels shallow", "pull complexity down", "use spare budget on the codebase", or invokes /ck:deepen. Leans on the codebase-design skill's deep-module vocabulary when present.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Calibrated interrogation of a fuzzy idea before it becomes a spec. Asks one question at a time, recommends an answer, and lands each answer in §G (goal) or §C (constraints) — unknowns parked as `?` items, never guessed. The cheapest place to kill a bad idea is before §T exists. Triggers when the user has a vague idea, says "grill me", "stress-test this", "challenge my plan", "interview me before I spec", or invokes /ck:grill. Defers the actual write to the spec skill.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Gather external knowledge the spec needs and distill it into §R — the durable research log — so build grounds in facts instead of hallucinating library behavior. Each finding cites a source; unsourced claims are flagged, never written as fact. Triggers when a spec decision hinges on a library/API/best practice the agent is unsure of, when the user says "research this", "what's the best lib for…", "check current best practice", or invokes /ck:research. Defers the §R write to the spec skill.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。