Spec

Delta Specs (.openspec/changes/)

Proposed modifications describing what's changing relative to the current specs.

• Located in .openspec/changes/[change-name]/specs/
• Use lifecycle marker headers: ## ADDED Requirements, ## MODIFIED Requirements, ## REMOVED Requirements
• Document changes being planned or developed
• Self-contained within change folders for parallel work

Lifecycle Markers:

• ## ADDED Requirements = Brand new requirements being proposed
• ## MODIFIED Requirements = Changes to existing requirements (note previous value)
• ## REMOVED Requirements = Features being deprecated
• ## RENAMED Requirements = Requirement name changes (if supported)

Workflow: Delta specs are created for new features → implemented → archived → merged into main specs (lifecycle markers removed during merge).

The Critical Distinction

Why This Matters

When creating specs:

1. Main specs (finalized) → use ## Requirements
2. Delta specs (proposals) → use ## ADDED Requirements, ## MODIFIED Requirements, etc.

When merging changes:

• ADDED sections get appended to main spec's Requirements
• MODIFIED sections replace corresponding requirements
• REMOVED sections delete requirements
• Lifecycle markers are stripped during merge

This distinction prevents confusion about what's current versus what's proposed.

Official Sources:

• OpenSpec Concepts
• OpenSpec Repository
• OpenSpec Getting Started

Spec Numbering Scheme: Functional vs Concern Specs

Specs are organized into two ranges by type:

Functional Specs (001–099)

Describe what the system does — bounded services, modules, and features.

001  system-overview      Vision, goals, architecture
002  infrastructure       Launch, schedule, shared state
003  services             IB Gateway, CLI
004  trading-core         Two-factor control, trade log
005  agents               4 agents + prompt system
006  operations           KPI metrics, paper/live transition
007  server               Trading Engine, REST API, TUI
008  execution            Order lifecycle, IB submission
009  kelly                Position sizing, portfolio constraints
011  ticker-vector        Source-tagged price subscriptions
012  ib-bridge            ZMQ service, market data, orders
013  ib-gateway           IBConnectionManager interface

Concern Specs (900–999)

Describe cross-cutting quality attributes — how the system does it, applied across all functional specs.

900  configuration        XDG layout, TOML config, service discovery, validation
901  observability        Logging, health checks, tracing, version/config log
902  security             Secrets management, API keys, auth, permissions
903  resilience           Error handling, circuit breakers, reconnection policy
904  performance          Latency budgets, throughput, resource limits
905  testing              Strategy, coverage targets, test categories

Key Distinction

• A functional spec says "IB Bridge handles market data subscriptions"
• A concern spec says "All services MUST log structured JSON on startup"
• An ADR explains why a specific choice was made (e.g., "why TOML over YAML")

Concern specs set cross-cutting policy; functional specs apply it to their specific service. For example, 903-resilience says "all services MUST reconnect within 30s", and 012-ib-bridge details how ib-bridge does it.

Numbering Rules

• 001–099: Functional specs (next available in sequence)
• 100–899: Reserved for future use
• 900–999: Concern specs (cross-cutting, non-functional)
• When creating a spec, first determine if it's functional or a concern, then pick the correct range

When to Use This Skill

Invoke this skill when the user wants to:

• Browse specs: View existing specifications interactively
• List specs: See available specifications and their status
• Create specs: Generate new specification files (functional or concern)
• Edit specs: Modify existing specifications
• Validate specs: Check if specs follow the proper structure
• Format specs: Reformat specs to match expected template
• Convert specs: Transform spec requirements into GitHub issues
• View requirements: Examine specific requirements and scenarios

Available Commands

Browse Specs Interactively

Use the spec command for interactive browsing with fzf:

spec                    # Interactive browser (default)
spec --raw              # Use bat instead of glow for rendering

Features:

• Auto-scroll to selected requirements
• Ctrl-/: Toggle zoom (60% ↔ 80% width)
• Ctrl-D/Ctrl-U: Scroll down/up in preview
• Line counter shows position in file
• Press Enter to view full spec

List All Specs

spec list               # Show all specs with metadata and requirements
spec status             # Compact overview table

Output includes:

• Spec titles and file paths
• Domain, version, and status
• All requirements with line numbers
• Total requirement count

View Spec Locations

OpenSpec uses a structured directory layout:

.openspec/
├── specs/                          # Main specs (current truth)
│   ├── 001-system-overview/spec.md   # Functional specs (001-099)
│   ├── 002-infrastructure/spec.md
│   ├── 012-ib-bridge/spec.md
│   ├── 900-configuration/spec.md     # Concern specs (900-999)
│   ├── 901-observability/spec.md
│   └── 902-security/spec.md
├── adr/                            # Architectural Decision Records
│   ├── index.md                    # Summary table of all ADRs
│   └── 0001-<decision-name>.md    # Individual ADRs (zero-padded)
├── changes/                        # Delta specs (proposed changes)
│   ├── 001-feature-proposal/
│   │   ├── proposal.md             # Intent, scope, approach
│   │   ├── specs/                  # Delta specs with lifecycle markers
│   │   │   └── 002-caching/spec.md
│   │   └── tasks.md                # Implementation checklist
│   └── archive/                    # Completed changes
│       └── 001-feature-proposal/
├── project.md                      # Project context for AI/developers
├── AGENTS.md                       # AI assistant instructions
├── template.md                     # Spec template
├── validate.py                     # Local validator (copy of openspec)
├── rules.toml                      # Validation rules (optional)
└── README.md                       # OpenSpec documentation

Project Context Files

project.md: Documents tech stack, architecture, patterns, and conventions

• Read this first when starting work on a project
• Provides context for making implementation decisions

AGENTS.md: Instructions for AI assistants

• Explains OpenSpec workflow
• Documents project-specific guidelines
• Shows how to use lifecycle markers

Creating New Specs

When the user asks to create a spec, follow this workflow:

Step 1: Gather Information

Ask the user:

1. System name: What are you specifying?
2. Domain: What area does this cover?
3. Key capabilities: What are the 3-5 main things it does?
4. Current status: Draft, Proposed, or Implemented?

Step 2: Determine Directory Number

First, decide if this is a functional spec or a concern spec:

• Functional (what a service/module does): use range 001–099
• Concern (cross-cutting quality attribute): use range 900–999

Then check existing specs to find the next number in that range:

ls .openspec/specs/

Examples:

• Next functional spec after 013- → 014-
• First concern spec → 900-
• Next concern spec after 901- → 902-

Step 3: Create Directory and File

# Functional spec
mkdir -p .openspec/specs/014-system-name

# Concern spec
mkdir -p .openspec/specs/900-configuration

Step 4: Generate Spec File

Create spec.md with this structure:

# System Name Specification

**Domain:** [Domain Area]
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Status:** [Draft|Proposed|Implemented]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Overview

[Brief description of the system and its purpose]

### Philosophy

- **Principle 1**: [Core design principle]
- **Principle 2**: [Another principle]

### Key Capabilities

- **Capability 1**: [What it does]
- **Capability 2**: [Another capability]

---

## RFC 2119 Keywords

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119).

---

## Requirements

### Requirement: [Requirement Name]

The system MUST [clear statement of requirement].

#### Scenario: [Happy Path]

- GIVEN [precondition and context]
- WHEN [action or trigger]
- THEN [expected outcome]
- AND [additional outcomes]

**Tests**: `tests/unit/test_feature.py::test_happy_path`

#### Scenario: [Edge Case]

- GIVEN [different precondition]
- WHEN [different action]
- THEN [expected behavior]

### Requirement: [Another Requirement]

[Continue with more requirements...]

---

## References

- **RFC 2119**: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119

## Internal Documentation

[Links to related specs]

---

**License:** Apache-2.0
**Copyright:** YYYY [Author]
**Co-Authored-By:** Claude Sonnet 4.5 <[email protected]>

Step 5: Verify

spec status             # Verify new spec appears
spec                    # Browse to new spec

Editing Existing Specs

When the user wants to edit a spec:

1. Find the spec: Use spec or spec list to locate it
2. Read the current content: Use Read tool to load the file
3. Make targeted edits: Use Edit tool for specific changes
4. Maintain structure: Keep RFC 2119 keywords and scenario format
5. Update version: If requirements change significantly, bump version

Traceability Model (ADR-0019)

OpenSpec follows the traceability metamodel defined in ADR-0019. Understanding this model is essential for writing well-structured specs.

Entity Domains

Specs contain entities organized into three domains:

Scenario as Bridge Entity

A Scenario is NOT just an example — it is the specification of evidence. It bridges Intent and Evidence:

Requirement -[CONTAINS]-> Scenario -[TESTED_BY]-> TestFunction

A requirement is proven when each of its Scenarios has a TESTED_BY edge, not merely when "some test exists." A requirement without scenarios cannot reach FULLY PROVEN status.

Traceability Edges and Confidence

File-level **Implementation**: references are Level 1 (declared, confidence 0.7). Function-level references (src/path/file.py::function_name) are Level 2 (resolved, confidence 0.8) — stronger evidence because they target specific code.

Declaring Test Traceability per Scenario

Use **Tests**: lines within scenarios to declare which tests validate that scenario:

#### Scenario: Generate FQN for top-level function

- GIVEN a Python file containing a top-level function
- WHEN the system generates an FQN
- THEN it MUST produce a unique, deterministic identifier

**Tests**: `tests/unit/core/test_fqn.py::test_generate_fqn_top_level`

This creates a TESTED_BY edge from the Scenario to the TestFunction. Multiple test references can be comma-separated:

**Tests**: `tests/unit/test_a.py::test_one`, `tests/unit/test_a.py::test_two`

Scenarios without **Tests**: lines are untested gaps — they can be filled later by structural or semantic inference.

Proof States (per Requirement)

Requirements without scenarios cannot be FULLY PROVEN — they surface as missing_scenarios gaps.

Linking Requirements to Implementation Code

OpenSpec supports implementation traceability—linking requirements to actual code. This enables tracking which requirements are implemented, finding code for requirements, and measuring coverage.

Why Code References Matter

1. Traceability: Engineers can quickly locate implementation code
2. Coverage Tracking: openspec coverage command counts references
3. Maintenance: Know what code to update when requirements change
4. Verification: Code reviewers can verify requirements are implemented
5. Documentation: New contributors understand the architecture

Method 1: Inline Implementation References

Add an Implementation: section to each requirement showing where it's implemented in code.

Format:

### Requirement: Feature Name

The system MUST provide [capability].

**Implementation:**
- `path/to/file.ext` - Brief description of what this file does
- `path/to/file.ext::function_name` - Specific function implementation
- `path/to/file.ext::function_name()` (lines 42-58) - With line numbers
- `path/to/script` (lines 10-25) - Shell script section

#### Scenario: Happy Path
...

Example from dotfiles specs:

### Requirement: Topic-Based Organization

The system MUST organize dotfiles into topic directories.

**Implementation:**
- `bash/bashrc.symlink` - Sources bash_aliases and bash_completion from all topics
- `bash/bash_profile.symlink` - Sources bash_env from all topics
- `local/bin/dot::list` (lines 82-94) - Lists topics with install.sh scripts
- `local/bin/dot::status` (lines 96-243) - Shows topic features (I=install, B=brew, etc.)
- `script/bootstrap::run_installers()` (lines 318-333) - Executes install.sh for each topic

Syntax Rules:

• Use relative paths from project root
• Format: file::function or file::function() for functions
• Format: (lines X-Y) for precise location (optional)
• Add brief description after - explaining what it does
• Group related files with bullet points

Method 2: Metadata Section

Add a Metadata section at the end of the spec (after References, before License) with structured categories and markdown links.

Why Markdown Links? The openspec coverage command parses markdown links in the format [text](path) to count:

• Source code references
• Test file references
• Internal documentation links

Structure:

## Metadata

This section provides project-specific links for tracking and traceability.

### Implementation Files

**Category Name:**
- [path/to/file.ext](path/to/file.ext) - Description

**Another Category:**
- [path/to/other.ext](path/to/other.ext) - Description

### Test Coverage

**Unit Tests:**
- [tests/unit/test_feature.py](tests/unit/test_feature.py) - Feature unit tests

**Integration Tests:**
- [tests/integration/test_workflow.sh](tests/integration/test_workflow.sh) - End-to-end tests

**Manual Testing:**
- Test procedure 1: Steps to verify requirement
- Test procedure 2: Steps to verify edge cases

### Related Specifications

- [001-core-system](../001-core-system/spec.md) - Core system specification
- [002-related-feature](../002-related-feature/spec.md) - Related feature

---

**License:** Apache-2.0
**Copyright:** 2026 Author

Example from spec 001:

## Metadata

This section provides project-specific links for tracking and traceability.

### Implementation Files

**Bootstrap Process:**
- [script/bootstrap](script/bootstrap) - Main bootstrap script with 8-step installation

**Package Management:**
- [local/bin/dot](local/bin/dot) - Homebrew package manager, topic installer
- [homebrew/brew_install.sh](homebrew/brew_install.sh) - Homebrew installation

**Shell Integration:**
- [bash/bash_profile.symlink](bash/bash_profile.symlink) - Login shell init
- [bash/bashrc.symlink](bash/bashrc.symlink) - Interactive shell init

### Test Coverage

**Manual Testing:**
- Bootstrap idempotency: Run `script/bootstrap` twice, verify no errors
- Topic discovery: Add new topic with bash_aliases, verify auto-discovery

### Related Specifications

- [002-dotfiles-caching](../002-dotfiles-caching/spec.md) - Caching system
- [003-shortcuts-system](../003-shortcuts-system/spec.md) - Shortcuts

Which Method to Use?

Use Inline Implementation when:

• Requirement maps to specific functions/files
• You want direct traceability at requirement level
• Code is well-organized and easy to reference

Use Metadata Section when:

• You want a consolidated reference list
• Multiple requirements share the same files
• You want to track test coverage separately
• You want structured categories for clarity

Use Both when:

• Inline for specific requirement-to-code mapping
• Metadata for comprehensive file list and test coverage

Coverage Tracking

The openspec coverage command parses markdown links to categorize and count references:

openspec coverage

# Output:
                      Reference Coverage
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━┓
┃ Spec                       ┃ ADRs ┃ Tests ┃ Source ┃ Total ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━┩
│ 001-dotfiles-core          │    0 │     0 │      5 │     5 │
│ 002-dotfiles-caching       │    0 │     0 │      4 │     4 │
│ 003-shortcuts-system       │    0 │     0 │      1 │     1 │
└────────────────────────────┴──────┴───────┴────────┴───────┘

Reference Categorization (from actual code):

• ADRs: Links containing /adr/ or starting with adr/ (Architectural Decision Records)
• Tests: Links containing /test or starting with test (test files, spec directories)
• Source: Links to source code files:
  • Extensions: .py, .js, .ts, .java, .go, .rs, .sh, .bash, .symlink
  • Paths: script/, /bin/, bin/, /brew_install
• External: Links starting with http://, https://, ftp:// (not counted in table)
• Internal: Other links like .md files, internal docs (not counted in table)

Note: Only ADRs, Tests, and Source appear in the coverage table. External and internal links are parsed but not displayed.

Best Practices

DO:

• ✅ Use relative paths from project root
• ✅ Use markdown link format: [text](path)
• ✅ Group files by category in Metadata section
• ✅ Include line numbers for large files
• ✅ Update references when code moves
• ✅ Link to tests for each requirement

DON'T:

• ❌ Use absolute paths (/Users/name/project/file.py)
• ❌ Link to external URLs for internal code
• ❌ Forget to update links when refactoring
• ❌ Include implementation details in requirement text (use Implementation section)

Example: Adding Traceability to Existing Spec

Before:

### Requirement: User Authentication

The system MUST authenticate users via OAuth.

#### Scenario: Successful Login
- GIVEN a valid OAuth token
- WHEN user attempts login
- THEN grant access to protected resources

After (with ADR-0019 traceability):

### Requirement: User Authentication

The system MUST authenticate users via OAuth.

**Implementation:** `src/auth/oauth.py`, `src/auth/session.py`, ADR-0012

#### Scenario: Successful Login
- GIVEN a valid OAuth token
- WHEN user attempts login
- THEN grant access to protected resources

**Tests**: `tests/unit/test_oauth.py::test_successful_login`

#### Scenario: Expired Token
- GIVEN an expired OAuth token
- WHEN user attempts login
- THEN return 401 Unauthorized

**Tests**: `tests/unit/test_oauth.py::test_expired_token`

This creates:

• IMPLEMENTED_BY edges from the requirement to src/auth/oauth.py and src/auth/session.py (confidence 0.7)
• ADDRESSED_BY edge from the requirement to ADR-0012 (confidence 0.9)
• TESTED_BY edges from each scenario to the named test functions (confidence 0.9)

And at end of spec:

## Metadata

### Implementation Files

**Authentication:**
- [src/auth/oauth.py](src/auth/oauth.py) - OAuth provider integration
- [src/auth/session.py](src/auth/session.py) - Session management
- [src/middleware/auth.py](src/middleware/auth.py) - Auth middleware

### Test Coverage

**Unit Tests:**
- [tests/unit/test_oauth.py](tests/unit/test_oauth.py) - OAuth handler tests
- [tests/unit/test_session.py](tests/unit/test_session.py) - Session tests

**Integration Tests:**
- [tests/integration/test_auth_flow.py](tests/integration/test_auth_flow.py) - End-to-end auth

Creating Proposals for Changes

When the user wants to propose changes to existing specs or add new features, use the proposal workflow:

Proposal Workflow

1. Create Change Directory:

   mkdir -p ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/changes/NNN-proposal-name/specs
   

2. Create proposal.md:

   • Intent: Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve?
   • Scope: What's in scope vs. out of scope?
   • Approach: How will this be implemented?
   • Alternatives: What other approaches were considered?
   • Impact: Breaking changes, dependencies, testing strategy

3. Create Delta Specs with lifecycle markers:

   • Use ## ADDED Requirements for brand new requirements
   • Use ## MODIFIED Requirements for changes to existing requirements
   • Use ## REMOVED Requirements for deprecating features
   • Use ## RENAMED Requirements for renaming requirements

4. Create tasks.md:

   • Implementation checklist
   • Pre-implementation, implementation, testing, review phases
   • Track progress as tasks are completed

Example Delta Spec Structure

# Feature Name (Delta)

**Domain:** [Domain]
**Version:** [Version]
**Status:** Proposed
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Overview

This delta spec proposes [summary of changes].

## RFC 2119 Keywords

[Standard boilerplate]

## ADDED Requirements

### Requirement: New Feature

The system MUST support [new functionality].

#### Scenario: New Behavior
- GIVEN [context]
- WHEN [action]
- THEN [expected new behavior]

## MODIFIED Requirements

### Requirement: Existing Feature (Modified)

The system MUST support [updated functionality].

**Changes from v1.0:**
- Added: [What's new]
- Changed: [What changed]
- Removed: [What was removed]

#### Scenario: Updated Behavior (NEW)
- GIVEN [context]
- WHEN [action]
- THEN [new expected behavior]

## REMOVED Requirements

### Requirement: Deprecated Feature

This requirement is being removed because [rationale].

**Migration path**: [How to adapt to removal]

When to Use Proposals

• Adding significant new features
• Making breaking changes
• Removing functionality
• Major refactoring that affects behavior
• Any change that requires team discussion/approval

For small bug fixes or minor improvements, you can update main specs directly.

Validating Specs

When the user asks to validate a spec, check for required sections and proper structure.

Required Sections

Every main spec MUST include:

1. Title - # [System Name] Specification
2. Frontmatter - Domain, Version, Status, Date (Owner is recommended)
3. Overview - Brief description
4. RFC 2119 Keywords - Standard compliance statement
5. Requirements - At least one requirement (note: use "Requirements", NOT "ADDED Requirements" in main specs)

Validation Checklist

Run through this checklist and report findings:

✅ Has proper title format
✅ Has frontmatter (Domain, Version, Status, Date required; Owner recommended)
✅ Has Overview section
✅ Has Philosophy subsection (recommended)
✅ Has Key Capabilities subsection (recommended)
✅ Has RFC 2119 Keywords section
✅ Has Requirements section (NOT "ADDED Requirements" for main specs)
✅ Has at least one Requirement
✅ Each requirement has at least one Scenario
✅ Scenarios use proper Given-When-Then format
✅ Uses RFC 2119 keywords (MUST, SHALL, SHOULD, MAY)
✅ Has References section (recommended)
✅ Has license/copyright info (recommended)

--- ADR-0019 Traceability Checks (recommended) ---
✅ MUST requirements have **Implementation**: references
✅ MUST requirements have **Tests**: per scenario (or gap is documented)
✅ Scenarios have GIVEN/WHEN/THEN structure (parseable)
✅ ADR references use ADR-NNNN format (4-digit, for ADDRESSED_BY edges)
✅ Implementation paths use `src/...` format (for IMPLEMENTED_BY edges)
✅ Test references use `tests/path/file.py::test_name` format (for TESTED_BY edges)

Validation Example

User: "Validate the caching spec"

Claude: I'll validate the dotfiles caching spec...

✅ Title: "Dotfiles Caching System Specification"
✅ Frontmatter: All fields present (Domain, Version, Status, Date)
✅ Overview: Present with Philosophy and Key Capabilities
✅ RFC 2119 Keywords: Present
✅ Requirements: 4 requirements found
✅ Scenarios: All requirements have scenarios
✅ Given-When-Then: Proper format used
✅ RFC 2119 Keywords: Used correctly (MUST, SHALL)
✅ References: Present
✅ License: Apache-2.0

Summary: Spec is valid! No issues found.

Common Issues

Report these if found:

❌ Missing RFC 2119 section: Required for standards compliance ❌ Wrong section header: Using "## ADDED Requirements" in main specs (should be "## Requirements") ❌ Vague scenarios: Missing GIVEN/WHEN/THEN or too abstract ❌ No requirements: Spec must have at least one requirement ❌ Missing frontmatter: Need Domain, Version, Status, Date (Owner recommended) ❌ Weak keywords: Using "should" instead of RFC 2119 SHOULD ❌ No scenarios: Requirements must have concrete examples ❌ Implementation details: Scenarios should describe behavior, not code

Formatting Specs

When the user asks to format a spec, restructure it to match the template.

Formatting Process

1. Read the current spec: Load the file completely
2. Identify sections: Find existing content
3. Reorganize: Match standard template order
4. Add missing sections: Insert template sections with placeholders
5. Preserve content: Keep all existing text, just reorganize
6. Fix formatting: Ensure proper markdown structure

Standard Section Order (Main Specs)

1. Title (# System Name Specification)
2. Frontmatter (Domain, Version, Status, Date)
3. Overview
   - Brief description
   - Philosophy (subsection)
   - Key Capabilities (subsection)
4. RFC 2119 Keywords (standard boilerplate)
5. Requirements
   - Multiple requirements
   - Each with scenarios
6. Current Implementation (optional)
7. Testing Requirements (optional)
8. Dependencies (optional)
9. References
10. Internal Documentation
11. License/Copyright

Note: Non-functional / cross-cutting requirements belong in concern specs (900-range), not as a section within functional specs. If a functional spec needs to reference a cross-cutting policy, link to the concern spec instead of duplicating the requirement.

Note: For delta specs in .openspec/changes/, use lifecycle markers: ## ADDED Requirements, ## MODIFIED Requirements, ## REMOVED Requirements

Formatting Example

User: "Format the hotkey spec"

Claude: I'll reformat the hotkey spec to match the standard template...

Changes made:
- Moved Overview before RFC 2119 section
- Added missing Philosophy subsection
- Added Key Capabilities subsection
- Reorganized requirements into Requirements section
- Added RFC 2119 Keywords section (was missing)
- Added References section
- Added license/copyright footer
- Standardized requirement headers
- Formatted scenarios with proper indentation

The spec now follows the standard OpenSpec structure.

Formatting Guidelines

Do:

• ✅ Preserve all existing content
• ✅ Add section dividers (---)
• ✅ Standardize heading levels (## for sections, ### for requirements)
• ✅ Format scenarios with proper bullets and indentation
• ✅ Add missing required sections with [TODO] placeholders
• ✅ Keep line length reasonable (~80-100 chars for text)

Don't:

• ❌ Delete or modify existing requirements
• ❌ Change the meaning of scenarios
• ❌ Remove implementation details (move to proper section instead)
• ❌ Alter RFC 2119 keywords
• ❌ Remove references or links

Converting Specs to Issues

When the user wants to create GitHub issues from spec requirements:

Approach 1: One Issue Per Requirement

# Extract requirements from spec
grep "^### Requirement:" spec.md

# For each requirement, create issue with:
# - Title: Requirement name
# - Body: Requirement description + scenarios
# - Labels: spec, requirement

Approach 2: One Issue Per Scenario

For complex requirements, create separate issues per scenario:

# Title: [Requirement Name] - [Scenario Name]
# Body: Given-When-Then scenario
# Labels: spec, scenario, requirement-name

Using gh CLI

gh issue create \
  --title "Requirement: [Name]" \
  --body "[Full requirement text with scenarios]" \
  --label "spec,requirement"

Writing Effective Requirements

Requirement Format

Requirements support both numbered and unnumbered formats:

Unnumbered (standard):

### Requirement: Topic-Based Organization

Numbered (optional):

### Requirement 8: Serialization Methods
### Requirement 10: Validation Rules

Use numbered requirements when:

• You need explicit ordering
• Requirements will be referenced by number
• Multiple specs need aligned numbering

Formatting Rules

❌ PROHIBITED:

• NO color codes - No ANSI escape sequences, no \033[, no terminal colors
• NO HTML - No <span>, <div>, or any HTML tags
• NO emoji in requirements - Keep formal and searchable
• NO special characters - Stick to markdown syntax

✅ ALLOWED:

• Plain markdown formatting (**bold**, *italic*, `code`)
• Standard markdown lists, headings, links
• Code blocks with language specifiers
• Numbered requirement format (### Requirement 8:)

RFC 2119 Keywords

• MUST/SHALL: Absolute requirement (mandatory)
• SHOULD: Recommended but not mandatory
• MAY: Optional feature or behavior
• MUST NOT/SHALL NOT: Absolute prohibition

Scenario Best Practices

✅ Good Scenario (Specific and testable):

#### Scenario: Cache Hit on Subsequent Shell Start

- GIVEN valid cache exists at ${XDG_CACHE_HOME}/dotfiles/bash_aliases.sh
- AND cache mtime is newer than all source files
- WHEN a new bash shell starts
- THEN it SHALL source the cache directly without filesystem scanning
- AND shell startup SHALL complete in <100ms

❌ Bad Scenario (Vague and untestable):

#### Scenario: Fast Loading

- GIVEN the system is running
- WHEN user does something
- THEN it should be fast

Key Principles

1. Be Specific: Use concrete values, paths, and conditions
2. Be Testable: Should be verifiable through testing
3. Show Context: GIVEN clause provides all preconditions
4. Focus on Behavior: Describe what happens, not implementation
5. Include Edge Cases: Document error conditions and boundaries

Common Patterns

Pattern: Discovery

### Requirement: Automatic Discovery

The system MUST automatically discover [items] without manual registration.

#### Scenario: New Item Added
- GIVEN a new [item] is created
- WHEN [discovery runs]
- THEN system SHALL include it automatically

#### Scenario: Item Removed
- GIVEN [item] is deleted
- WHEN [discovery runs]
- THEN system SHALL exclude it automatically

Pattern: Caching

### Requirement 5: Smart Caching

The system MUST cache [data] with automatic invalidation.

#### Scenario: Cache Hit
- GIVEN cache exists and is fresh
- WHEN [operation occurs]
- THEN load from cache in <Xms

#### Scenario: Automatic Invalidation
- GIVEN cached data exists
- WHEN source data changes
- THEN system SHALL regenerate cache

Pattern: Numbered Requirements

Use numbered requirements for explicit ordering:

### Requirement 1: Data Input
The system MUST accept input from multiple sources.

### Requirement 2: Data Validation
The system MUST validate input before processing (depends on Req 1).

### Requirement 3: Data Storage
The system MUST persist validated data (depends on Req 2).

Integration with Workflow

After Creating a Spec

1. Browse it: spec to verify it appears
2. Commit it: Add to git with /commit
3. Reference it: Link from CLAUDE.md if relevant

Spec-Driven Development

1. Write spec first: Define requirements before implementation
2. Implement features: Code against spec requirements
3. Update status: Change from Draft → Implemented when done
4. Keep in sync: Update spec when behavior changes

Quick Reference

# Browse specs interactively
spec

# List all specs with details
spec list

# Show compact overview
spec status

# Create new spec (use /spec skill)
/spec create [system-name]

# Validate a spec (use /spec skill)
/spec validate [spec-file]

# Format a spec (use /spec skill)
/spec format [spec-file]

# Find spec directory
cd ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/specs/

# Count requirements across all specs (both formats)
grep -r "^### Requirement" ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/specs/ | wc -l

# Check if spec has RFC 2119 section
grep -l "RFC 2119 Keywords" ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/specs/*/spec.md

Example Workflow

User: "Create a spec for the hotkey system"

Claude:

1. Ask about system details (name, domain, capabilities)
2. Check next available number: ls ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/specs/
3. Create directory: mkdir -p .openspec/specs/004-hotkey-system/
4. Generate spec.md with proper structure
5. Prompt user to add specific requirements
6. Run spec status to verify

User: "Show me the caching spec"

Claude:

1. Run spec to open interactive browser
2. Or read the file directly: Read ~/.dotfiles/.openspec/specs/002-dotfiles-caching/spec.md

User: "Validate the shortcuts spec"

Claude:

1. Read the spec file
2. Check for all required sections
3. Verify RFC 2119 compliance
4. Check requirement structure
5. Report validation results with ✅/❌

User: "Format the hotkey spec"

Claude:

1. Read the current spec
2. Identify existing sections
3. Reorganize to match standard template
4. Add missing sections with placeholders
5. Preserve all existing content
6. Write the reformatted spec

User: "Convert the caching spec requirements to issues"

Claude:

1. Read the spec file
2. Extract all requirements (grep for ### Requirement)
3. For each requirement, create issue with gh issue create
4. Include scenarios in issue body

Important Guidelines

When creating or editing specs, ALWAYS follow these rules:

✅ DO:

• Use plain markdown formatting only
• Use numbered requirements when ordering matters (### Requirement 8:)
• Keep text clean and searchable
• Use RFC 2119 keywords (MUST, SHALL, SHOULD, MAY)
• Write specific, testable scenarios with Given-When-Then

❌ DON'T:

• NO color codes - No \033[31m, no ANSI escape sequences
• NO HTML - No <span style="color:red">, no HTML tags
• NO emoji in requirements - Keep professional and greppable
• NO special terminal formatting - Plain markdown only
• NO implementation details - Focus on behavior, not code

These rules ensure specs remain:

• Searchable with grep/ripgrep
• Portable across editors and viewers
• Version-control friendly with clean diffs
• Professional and formal in tone

License: Apache-2.0 Copyright: 2026 Ilja Heitlager Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 [email protected]