Spec

Scope down - If it can't be done in 1-3 weeks by 1-3 people, break it down further.

See: skills/spec/references/philosophy.md for the full philosophy.

Entry Point

When this skill is invoked, start with:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 SPEC
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What are you speccing?

  1. Quick task (hours to days)
     → Clear title + optional description
     → If it fits in one sentence, just write an issue

  2. Feature (1-3 weeks)
     → Problem, solution, success metric, scope
     → Use what's helpful, skip the rest

  3. AI feature (any size)
     → Core AI questions + context requirements + behavior examples
     → Evals are non-negotiable. Model costs early.

  4. Not sure
     → Tell me what you're building, I'll help you decide

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Parse intent from context:

• If user says "issue" or mentions a quick task → Level 1
• If user mentions a feature, project, or gives detail → Level 2
• If user mentions AI, ML, LLM, context, prompts → Level 3
• If user provides a Linear issue ID → fetch it, then determine level

Command-line shortcuts:

• /spec --quick → Skip to Level 1
• /spec --feature → Skip to Level 2
• /spec --ai → Skip to Level 3
• /spec LIN-123 → Fetch Linear issue, determine level

Level 1: Quick Task (Linear Issue)

When to Use

• Task is clear and focused
• Can be done in hours to a few days
• Title alone is almost enough
• No ambiguity about what "done" means

Template

Use templates/linear-issue.md as reference.

Flow

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 LEVEL 1: Quick Task
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The goal: A title that makes it obvious what you're doing.
Everything else is optional.

Questions to ask:

1. What's the action? (Add, Fix, Design, Refactor, Remove...)

2. What's being changed? (The specific thing)

3. Where? (Optional: location in product)

Good titles:

• Add CSV export to dashboard
• Fix: Login fails on Safari
• Design mobile navigation
• Refactor auth middleware

Bad titles:

• Export feature (vague)
• Bug (what bug?)
• Updates (what updates?)

When to add a description:

• Context isn't obvious
• Specific requirements exist
• Edge cases need clarification
• Need to link to designs/specs

When to skip description:

• Title says it all
• Task is straightforward
• Team already understands context

Output

Generate a clear issue ready for Linear:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 ISSUE READY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Title: [Generated title]

Description:
[Optional description if needed]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What next?

  1. Create in Linear
  2. Edit title/description
  3. Add more context (→ Level 2)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

If Linear MCP available: Offer to create the issue directly.

Level 2: Feature (Lite PRD)

When to Use

• Feature needs alignment across team
• Scope is 1-3 weeks
• Need to document problem, solution, success criteria
• More than just "implement X"

Template

Use templates/lite-prd.md as reference.

Flow

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 LEVEL 2: Feature Spec
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The goal: Shared understanding. Not completeness.

We'll answer 5 essential questions. Everything else is optional.

The Essentials (Always answer)

1. What problem are we solving?

• 2-3 sentences
• Customer pain or opportunity
• Push for specificity

2. For whom?

• Specific user segment
• Not "users" - which users?

3. How do we know this matters?

• Evidence: research, data, feedback
• Not assumptions - what do you actually know?

4. What are we building?

• High-level solution
• Link to prototype if you have one (you should!)

5. How will we know it worked?

• 1-2 key metrics with targets
• Not "improve X" - what number?

Optional Sections

After the essentials, offer relevant optional sections:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 ESSENTIALS COMPLETE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

That might be all you need. Want to add any of these?

  □ Scope & Decisions (in/out of scope, open questions)
  □ Risks (assumptions, four risks check)
  □ Discovery Insights (research, data)
  □ Technical Notes (estimate, challenges, dependencies)
  □ Launch Notes (rollout strategy, communication)
  □ Timeline (Now/Next/Later)

Skip what doesn't help create shared understanding.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Output

Generate the spec in markdown:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 SPEC READY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

# [Feature Name]

## The Essentials

**What problem:** [2-3 sentences]

**For whom:** [Specific segment]

**Evidence:** [What you know]

**Solution:** [What you're building + prototype link]

**Success:** [Metric with target]

[Optional sections if added]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What next?

  1. Create Linear project (parent + child issues)
  2. Export markdown
  3. Go deeper (→ Level 4 options)
  4. Start over

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Level 3: AI Feature

When to Use

• Building anything with AI/ML/LLM
• Need to define context requirements
• Need behavior examples for evals
• Cost modeling matters

Templates

Use templates/ai-product-spec.md + context requirements table.

Flow

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 LEVEL 3: AI Feature Spec
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AI products need more upfront thinking - but not overly complex docs.

We'll cover:
  • Core AI questions (what, quality, testing, cost, failures)
  • Context requirements (what data the AI needs)
  • Behavior examples (what good/bad looks like)

Evals are non-negotiable. Model costs early.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Phase 1: Core AI Questions

Walk through these 5 questions (from templates/ai-product-spec.md):

1. What's the AI doing?

• What problem? What task?
• Push for precision: Not "recommendations" → "3 ranked options with rationale"

2. How will you know if it's good?

• What does "good" output look like?
• What's "bad"? What should never happen?

3. How will you test it?

• Eval strategy (even simple evals > no evals)
• Test dataset categories: happy path, edge cases, adversarial, boundary

4. What will it cost?

• Cost per query/user
• Projected at scale

5. What happens when it's wrong?

• User controls
• Fallbacks
• Safety guardrails

Phase 2: Context Requirements

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 CONTEXT REQUIREMENTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

90% of AI quality comes from context quality.

What context does the AI need to do its job?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Build a context requirements table:

See: skills/spec/references/context-table.md for the full format.

Key questions:

• For each piece of context: Where does it come from? Is it always available?
• What happens when context is missing? (Fallback behavior)
• Any privacy/sensitivity concerns?

Flag problems immediately:

• "Sometimes" availability needs a decision
• "Never" availability is a blocker

Phase 3: Behavior Examples

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 BEHAVIOR EXAMPLES
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AI behaves according to examples, not descriptions.

We need 5-10 examples minimum covering:
  • Good responses (what should happen)
  • Bad responses (common failure modes)
  • Reject cases (when AI should refuse/defer)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Example format:

Scenario: [Brief description]
Input: [What the user provides]
Good: [Desired response]
Bad: [What to avoid]
Reject: [When to refuse - if applicable]

See: skills/spec/references/behavior-examples.md for guidance.

Coverage to aim for:

• 2-3 happy path examples
• 2-3 edge cases
• 1-2 adversarial inputs
• 1-2 boundary cases (out of scope)

Phase 4: Agency Progression Plan

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 AGENCY PROGRESSION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

AI products earn autonomy. What's your ladder?

| Version | Capability | Control | Agency | What You're Testing |
|---------|------------|---------|--------|---------------------|
| V1      | [describe] | High    | Low    | [what you learn]    |
| V2      | [describe] | Medium  | Medium | [what you learn]    |
| V3      | [describe] | Low     | High   | [what you learn]    |

Which version are you speccing right now? (Usually V1)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Key questions:

• What's the minimum viable agency for V1?
• What must the AI prove before V2?
• What would full autonomy (V3) even look like?

See: skills/spec/references/agency-progression.md for examples and ladder patterns.

Phase 5: Control Handoffs

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 CONTROL HANDOFFS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

How do humans take back control when the AI is wrong?

- Override mechanism: [how users correct/reject AI output]
- Escalation path: [when AI should defer to human]
- Feedback capture: [how corrections feed back into system]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Good control handoffs:

• "AI suggested X. Accept or edit?"
• Clear confidence indicators
• Easy override path
• Corrections improve the system

Bad control handoffs:

• AI acts without confirmation
• No way to correct mistakes
• User doesn't know AI made the decision

Phase 6: Reference Dataset

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 REFERENCE DATASET
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Before building, you need 20-100 examples of expected behavior.
This forces alignment on what "good" looks like.

Where will reference examples come from?
- [ ] Historical data (logs, past interactions)
- [ ] Manual curation (team creates examples)
- [ ] User research (observed behaviors)
- [ ] Synthetic generation (for edge cases)

Target count: [X] examples before V1 launch
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Why this matters: Reference datasets force the team to align on expected behavior before writing prompts. Most AI features fail because teams skip this step.

Golden dataset = baseline for evals. Without it, you're testing against vibes.

Output

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 AI SPEC READY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

# [Feature Name]

## What's the AI Doing?
[Precise task description]

## Quality Definition
**Good:** [Criteria]
**Bad:** [What to avoid]

## Eval Strategy
[Test approach + dataset categories]

## Cost Model
[Cost per query + projection]

## Failure Handling
[User controls + fallbacks]

## Context Requirements

| Data | Source | Availability | Notes |
|------|--------|--------------|-------|
[Table]

**When context is missing:** [Fallback behavior]

## Behavior Examples

[5-10 examples]

## Agency Progression Plan

| Version | Capability | Control | Agency | What You're Testing |
|---------|------------|---------|--------|---------------------|
| V1 (this spec) | ... | High | Low | ... |
| V2 (future) | ... | Medium | Medium | ... |
| V3 (future) | ... | Low | High | ... |

## Control Handoffs

**Override:** [mechanism]
**Escalation:** [path]
**Feedback:** [capture method]

## Reference Dataset

**Source:** [where examples come from]
**Target:** [X] examples before launch
**Status:** [X/Y collected]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What next?

  1. Create Linear project
  2. Export markdown
  3. Go deeper (→ Level 4 options)
  4. Run /ai-health-check
  5. Plan agency ladder (/agency-ladder)
  6. Set up post-launch calibration (/calibrate)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Level 4: Deep Dive (On-Demand)

When user needs more depth, offer these expansions:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 GO DEEPER
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Your spec is solid. Need more depth anywhere?

  1. --deep context
     Full 4D Canvas walkthrough (Demand, Data, Discovery, Defense)

  2. --deep examples
     Expand to 15-25 behavior examples

  3. --deep rollout
     Detailed phased rollout with gates

  4. --deep full-prd
     Complete PRD framework (5 stages)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

--deep context

Invoke the full 4D Context Canvas walkthrough:

• D1 Demand: Precise job definition
• D2 Data: Full context requirements mapping
• D3 Discovery: How to fetch context at runtime
• D4 Defense: Pre-checks, post-checks, fallbacks, feedback loops

Reference the archived context-engineering skill for the full framework.

--deep examples

Expand behavior examples to 15-25:

• 5-7 happy path
• 4-5 edge cases
• 3-4 adversarial
• 3-4 boundary/reject cases

--deep rollout

Detailed rollout planning:

• Phase 1: Internal/beta (%, duration, criteria)
• Phase 2: Limited rollout (%, gates)
• Phase 3: Full launch (criteria)
• Kill switch: When and how to turn off
• Monitoring: What to track, alert thresholds

--deep full-prd

Invoke the prd-writer skill for the complete 5-stage PRD framework:

• Planning (Speclet)
• Kickoff
• Solution Review
• Launch Readiness
• Impact Review

Linear Integration

When Linear MCP is available:

Pulling Context

• /spec LIN-123 → Fetch issue details, pre-populate what's available
• For parent issues, offer to pull child issues for context

Creating Output

Level 1: Create issue directly via Linear MCP

Level 2: Offer to create:

• Parent issue with spec in description
• Child issues for implementation tasks

Level 3: Offer to create:

• Parent issue with full spec
• Child issues broken down by phase
• Context requirements in parent description

Integration with Other Commands

Before /spec:

• /four-risks - Should we build this at all?

After /spec:

• /ai-cost-check - Model the unit economics
• /ai-health-check - Pre-launch validation
• /ai-debug - If feature is underperforming
• /context-check - Quick quality validation

Attribution

Linear Method: Linear team (issues not stories, scope down, momentum) Lite PRD: Aakash Gupta (Product Growth) AI Product Spec: Aakash Gupta (Product Growth) Context Engineering: Aakash Gupta & Miqdad Jaffer (OpenAI) - 4D Context Canvas

Remember

• Right-size your spec - Don't write more than needed
• Prototype first - A demo + 3 paragraphs > 10-page spec
• Make decisions - Every section should decide something
• Short specs get read - Long specs get skipped
• Evals are non-negotiable - For AI features, define quality upfront