本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

spec-init

Unified skill that guides spec creation through structured, interactive process.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(10)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB
  • commands/spec-init.md109 B
  • hooks/post-execute.cjs296 B
  • hooks/pre-execute.cjs413 B
  • references/research-requirements.md349 B
  • rules/spec-init.md259 B
  • schemas/input.schema.json544 B
  • schemas/output.schema.json253 B
  • scripts/main.cjs1.0 KB
  • templates/implementation-template.md183 B

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

SKILL: spec-init

Overview

Unified skill that guides spec creation through structured, interactive process.

Wraps these existing skills:

  • context-compressor (progressive disclosure mode for requirements gathering)
  • plan-generator (plan from spec)

Workflow

1. Type Detection

Question: "What are you building?"

Auto-detect from description:

  • Feature: "Build X functionality" → type: feature
  • Bug: "Fix X issue" → type: bug
  • Chore: "Update X component" → type: chore
  • Refactor: "Reorganize X" → type: refactor
  • Docs: "Document X" → type: docs

2. Progressive Disclosure v2 (Adaptive, 5-7 questions)

Invoke context-compressor (progressive disclosure mode) with adaptive algorithm:

const { AdaptiveQuestioner } = require('.claude/lib/utils/adaptive-discloser.cjs');
const { ContextAccumulator } = require('.claude/lib/utils/context-accumulator.cjs');

// Determine domain from detected type
const domainMap = {
  feature: 'general',
  bug: 'debugging',
  chore: 'general',
  refactor: 'architecture',
  docs: 'documentation',
};
const domain = domainMap[detectedType] || 'general';

const aq = new AdaptiveQuestioner(domain);
const ca = new ContextAccumulator();

let history = [];
let questionCount = 0;

while (questionCount < 7) {
  const context = ca.getContext();
  const result = await aq.getNextQuestion(context, history);

  // Check if we should stop early
  const readiness = await aq.detectOptimalStop(history, context);
  if (readiness.shouldStop) {
    break;
  }

  // Ask the question
  const answer = await AskUserQuestion({ question: result.question });

  // Store answer with metadata
  ca.addAnswer(result.question, answer, { domain, priority: 'HIGH' });
  history.push({ question: result.question, answer });

  questionCount++;
}

// Summary from accumulated context
const summary = ca.buildSummary();

Key Improvements over v1:

  • Adaptive questioning (skips redundant questions)
  • Context-aware (learns from answers)
  • Memory-integrated (leverages learnings.md)
  • Optimal stopping (5-7 questions typical, down from 10-12)
  • Quality scoring (detects when ready for spec generation)

3. Spec Template Generation

Auto-populate spec from answers:

# SPEC: [Feature Name]

## 1. Overview

**Title**: [From question 1]
**Type**: [Detected type]
**Objective**: [User summary]

**User Story**: As a [user type], I want [capability], so that [benefit]

**Acceptance Criteria**: [From question 5]

## 2. Problem Statement

- **Current State**: [From question 1 answers]
- **Pain Points**: [Extracted from answers]
- **Impact**: [Quantified if possible]

## 3. Proposed Solution

- **Approach**: [From user input]
- **Key Features**: [From answers]
- **Scope**: [What's in/out]

## 4. Implementation Approach

- **Phase 1**: [Design/spike if needed]
- **Phase 2**: [Core implementation]
- **Phase 3**: [Testing]
- **Phase 4**: [Documentation]

## 5. Success Metrics

- **Quantitative**: [From question 3]
- **Qualitative**: [User satisfaction]
- **Timeline**: [From question 4]

## 6. Effort Estimate

- **Design**: 1 day
- **Implementation**: 3 days
- **Testing**: 2 days
- **Documentation**: 1 day
- **Total**: 7 days

## 7. Dependencies

- **Required**: [Extracted from context]
- **Blocking**: [What must complete first]
- **Risk**: [Key risks identified]

## 8. Acceptance Criteria Checklist

- [ ] Feature implemented per spec
- [ ] All tests passing
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] No breaking changes
- [ ] Performance targets met

4. Validation

Validate spec against schema:

  • Validate spec completeness inline
  • Check: all required sections present
  • Check: at least 3 acceptance criteria
  • Check: effort estimate in days

5. Plan Suggestion

After spec approved:

  • Suggest: "Ready for planner to create plan?"
  • If yes: Show Skill({ skill: "plan-generator", args: { specPath: "..." } })
  • If no: Allow editing spec

6. Storage

Save spec to:

.claude/context/artifacts/specs/[feature-name]-spec-YYYYMMDD.md

Track metadata:

  • trackId: auto-generated
  • type: detected
  • status: "new"
  • created_at: timestamp

Usage Examples

Example 1: Quick Feature

User: "I want to add dark mode to the UI"

spec-init workflow:
1. Detect: type = "feature"
2. Ask: 5 questions about dark mode
3. User answers in <5 minutes
4. Generate spec
5. Validate against schema
6. Store and offer plan generation

Example 2: Bug Fix

User: "There's a memory leak in the scheduler"

spec-init workflow:
1. Detect: type = "bug"
2. Ask: 5 questions (reproduce steps, impact, etc)
3. Generate bug fix spec
4. Suggest acceptance criteria
5. Ready for planner

Output

  • Generated spec markdown (saved)
  • Track metadata JSON
  • Plan generation suggestion
  • Next steps guidance

Integration Points

  • context-compressor (progressive disclosure mode for requirements gathering)
  • plan-generator (next step)
  • track-metadata schema (metadata)

Iron Laws

  1. NEVER ask more than 7 clarifying questions — detect optimal stopping and generate the spec
  2. ALWAYS detect the intent type (feature/bug/chore/refactor/docs) before any questioning
  3. NEVER generate a spec without validating all required sections are populated
  4. ALWAYS save the spec to .claude/context/artifacts/specs/ with the correct naming convention
  5. NEVER skip track metadata — every spec must include trackId, type, status, and created_at

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsCorrect Approach
Asking 10-12 fixed questionsOver-questioning reduces user engagementUse progressive disclosure; stop at 5-7 questions when context is sufficient
Skipping intent type detectionQuestions don't adapt to the task typeAlways classify the request as feature/bug/chore/refactor/docs first
Generating spec without validationIncomplete specs reach the plannerValidate all required sections before saving the spec
Missing track metadataSpec cannot be tracked or referenced by downstream agentsAlways populate trackId, type, status, and created_at fields
Saving to wrong locationSpecs are not discoverable by other agentsAlways save to .claude/context/artifacts/specs/ with standard naming

Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)

Before starting: Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md

After completing:

  • New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
  • Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
  • Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md

ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.

レビュー

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Ensure accessibility in UI components including semantic HTML, ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, and WCAG 2.2 AA compliance.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

Creates specialized AI agents on-demand when no existing agent matches a request. Use when the Router cannot find a suitable agent for a task. Enables self-evolution by generating persistent agents.

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

LLM-as-judge evaluation framework with 5-dimension rubric (accuracy, groundedness, coherence, completeness, helpfulness) for scoring AI-generated content quality with weighted composite scores and evidence citations

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。

oimiragieo/agent-studio432026年7月14日 更新

oimiragieo のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する