Writing Spec Documents

Create implementation specification documents that prescribe exactly what to build. The spec is a living document that evolves during sequencing and implementation.

Announce at start: "I'm using the writing-spec-documents skill to create the implementation spec."

When to Use

ALWAYS use this skill in Phase 2. Spec documents are required regardless of bridge weight.

Key difference from design doc:

• •Design doc = WHY (rationale, exploration, stable)
• •Spec doc = HOW (prescription, living, evolves)

Inputs

Before starting, ensure you have:

1. •PRD with FRs — requirements document with block-anchored FRs
2. •Phase 2 Whiteboard — decisions with ^decision-N anchors
3. •Design Doc (Heavy/Medium only) — formal design rationale

Traceability Model

Spec references whiteboard decisions. When spec changes, add new decision to whiteboard FIRST.

Whiteboard (append-only)        Spec (living)
├── ^decision-D1 ──────────►   <satisfies>D1</satisfies>
├── ^decision-D2 ──────────►   <component references="D2">
└── ^decision-D3 ──────────►   <changes references="D3">

Rule: Every significant spec element should trace to a whiteboard decision or PRD FR/NFR.

Spec Document Structure

Save to: {{feature-dir}}/{{feature-name}}-spec.md

The spec uses XML format in a codeblock for structured, machine-parseable content.

# {{Feature Name}} — Specification

**Feature**: {{feature name}}
**Phase**: 2 (Design)
**Status**: Draft

> **Context:**
> - [PRD]({{feature-name}}-prd.md)
> - [Phase 2 Whiteboard](2-design-phase/phase2-design-whiteboard.md)
> - [Design Doc]({{feature-name}}-design.md) _(if Heavy/Medium bridge)_

---

\`\`\`xml
<project_specification>
  <project_name>{{Feature Name}}</project_name>

  <overview>
    {{Brief description of what's being built}}
  </overview>

  <components>
    {{See Component Template below}}
  </components>

  <data_schemas>
    {{See Data Schema Template below}}
  </data_schemas>

  <integration>
    {{See Integration Template below}}
  </integration>

  <acceptance_criteria>
    {{See AC Template below}}
  </acceptance_criteria>

  <risks>
    {{See Risk Template below}}
  </risks>
</project_specification>
\`\`\`

Component Template

<component name="{{component-name}}" port_type="{{type}}">
  <source>{{source file path if porting}}</source>
  <target>{{target file path}}</target>
  <lines>{{estimated lines}}</lines>
  <language>{{language}}</language>
  <changes>
    - {{Change 1}}
    - {{Change 2}}
  </changes>
  <satisfies>{{FR1, FR2, D1}}</satisfies>
</component>

Port types:

• •new — New file, not in source
• •copy_modify — Copy from source with path/config changes only
• •rewrite — Significant structural rewrite (language change, tool change)
• •translation — Language translation, same logic

Data Schema Template

<schema name="{{schema-name}}">
  <format>{{JSON, YAML, JSONL, etc.}}</format>
  <location>{{file path}}</location>
  <fields>
    - {{field1}}: {{type and description}}
    - {{field2}}: {{type and description}}
  </fields>
</schema>

Integration Template

<integration>
  <hook_registration>
    <file>{{config file path}}</file>
    <additions>
      {{What's being added to the config}}
    </additions>
  </hook_registration>

  <directory_structure>
    <path>{{base path}}</path>
    <contents>
      - {{file/dir 1}} — {{purpose}}
      - {{file/dir 2}} — {{purpose}}
    </contents>
  </directory_structure>

  <path_mapping>
    <entry>
      <source>{{source path}}</source>
      <target>{{target path}}</target>
    </entry>
  </path_mapping>
</integration>

Acceptance Criteria Template

<acceptance_criteria>
  <section name="{{Section Name}}" fr="{{FR1}}">
    - AC1: {{Testable acceptance criterion}}
    - AC2: {{Testable acceptance criterion}}
  </section>
</acceptance_criteria>

Traceability: Each AC section traces to an FR. Individual ACs inherit that traceability.

Risk Template

<risks>
  <risk severity="{{High|Medium|Low}}">
    <description>{{What could go wrong}}</description>
    <mitigation>{{How to prevent or handle it}}</mitigation>
  </risk>
</risks>

Bridge-Specific Content

Heavy Bridge (Greenfield, Integration, API)

Full spec with all sections:

• •Detailed component specs with behavior descriptions
• •Complete data schemas
• •Interface contracts
• •All integration points
• •Comprehensive ACs

Medium Bridge (Brownfield, Migration)

Moderate spec:

• •Component specs focused on changes
• •Schemas for new/modified data
• •Integration changes only
• •ACs for new functionality

Light Bridge (Port, Refactor)

Focused spec:

• •Components with port_type and source/target mapping
• •Path mappings (source → target)
• •Minimal schemas (only if format changes)
• •ACs focused on parity validation

Thin Bridge (Bug Fix, Deprecation)

Minimal spec:

• •Affected components only
• •Change description
• •Verification criteria

Spec Evolution

The spec is a living document. It changes during:

1. •Sequencing (Phase 3) — ACs refined, risks reassessed
2. •Implementation (Phase 4) — Details adjusted based on reality

When changing the spec:

1. •Add new decision to whiteboard with rationale: ^decision-DN
2. •Update spec component/section with reference: <satisfies>DN</satisfies>
3. •Commit both files together

Never: Change spec without whiteboard decision anchor.

Output Location

Validation Checklist

After writing spec, verify:

1. • Every component has <satisfies> tracing to FR or decision
2. • All port_types are correct (new, copy_modify, rewrite, translation)
3. • Path mappings are complete (source → target)
4. • ACs trace to FRs
5. • Risks have mitigations
6. • Run citation-manager validate <spec-path>

Common Mistakes

Red Flags

• •Components without <satisfies> traceability
• •Spec changes with no corresponding whiteboard decision
• •Heavy bridge with minimal spec content
• •Light bridge with excessive spec content
• •Missing path mappings for ports
• •ACs that don't trace to FRs

Integration with Other Skills

Inputs from:

• •writing-requirements-documents — PRD with FRs
• •writing-design-documents — Design doc (Heavy/Medium bridge)
• •Phase 2 whiteboard — Decision anchors

Outputs to:

• •Sequencing phase — Spec informs work decomposition
• •writing-plans — Spec feeds implementation planning

Referenced by:

• •enforcing-development-workflow — Phase 2 REQUIRED skill (all bridge weights)

Remember: The spec prescribes exactly what to build. It's a living document that evolves, but every change must trace back to a whiteboard decision. Spec depth should match bridge weight — don't over-engineer for ports, don't under-specify for greenfield.