commit
This commit is contained in:
aruo
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "OPSX: Apply"
|
||||
description: Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change (Experimental)
|
||||
category: Workflow
|
||||
tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name (e.g., `/opsx:apply add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Select the change**
|
||||
|
||||
If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
|
||||
- Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
|
||||
- Auto-select if only one active change exists
|
||||
- If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select
|
||||
|
||||
Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:apply <other>`).
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check status to understand the schema**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
|
||||
- Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get apply instructions**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This returns:
|
||||
- `contextFiles`: artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths (varies by schema)
|
||||
- Progress (total, complete, remaining)
|
||||
- Task list with status
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction based on current state
|
||||
|
||||
**Handle states:**
|
||||
- If `state: "blocked"` (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using `/opsx:continue`
|
||||
- If `state: "all_done"`: congratulate, suggest archive
|
||||
- Otherwise: proceed to implementation
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Read context files**
|
||||
|
||||
Read every file path listed under `contextFiles` from the apply instructions output.
|
||||
The files depend on the schema being used:
|
||||
- **spec-driven**: proposal, specs, design, tasks
|
||||
- Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show current progress**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Schema being used
|
||||
- Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- Remaining tasks overview
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction from CLI
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)**
|
||||
|
||||
For each pending task:
|
||||
- Show which task is being worked on
|
||||
- Make the code changes required
|
||||
- Keep changes minimal and focused
|
||||
- Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
|
||||
- Continue to next task
|
||||
|
||||
**Pause if:**
|
||||
- Task is unclear → ask for clarification
|
||||
- Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
|
||||
- Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
|
||||
- User interrupts
|
||||
|
||||
7. **On completion or pause, show status**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Tasks completed this session
|
||||
- Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- If all done: suggest archive
|
||||
- If paused: explain why and wait for guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Output During Implementation**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 3/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 4/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Completion**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Completed This Session
|
||||
- [x] Task 1
|
||||
- [x] Task 2
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
All tasks complete! You can archive this change with `/opsx:archive`.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Paused
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete
|
||||
|
||||
### Issue Encountered
|
||||
<description of the issue>
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. <option 1>
|
||||
2. <option 2>
|
||||
3. Other approach
|
||||
|
||||
What would you like to do?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
|
||||
- Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
|
||||
- If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
|
||||
- If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
|
||||
- Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
|
||||
- Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
|
||||
- Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
|
||||
- Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names
|
||||
|
||||
**Fluid Workflow Integration**
|
||||
|
||||
This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Can be invoked anytime**: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
|
||||
- **Allows artifact updates**: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "OPSX: Archive"
|
||||
description: Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow
|
||||
category: Workflow
|
||||
tags: [workflow, archive, experimental]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name after `/opsx:archive` (e.g., `/opsx:archive add-auth`). If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
|
||||
|
||||
Show only active changes (not already archived).
|
||||
Include the schema used for each change if available.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check artifact completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` to check artifact completion.
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used
|
||||
- `artifacts`: List of artifacts with their status (`done` or other)
|
||||
|
||||
**If any artifacts are not `done`:**
|
||||
- Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
|
||||
- Prompt user for confirmation to continue
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Check task completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Read the tasks file (typically `tasks.md`) to check for incomplete tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
Count tasks marked with `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete).
|
||||
|
||||
**If incomplete tasks found:**
|
||||
- Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
|
||||
- Prompt user for confirmation to continue
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
**If no tasks file exists:** Proceed without task-related warning.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Assess delta spec sync state**
|
||||
|
||||
Check for delta specs at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
**If delta specs exist:**
|
||||
- Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
|
||||
- Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
|
||||
- Show a combined summary before prompting
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt options:**
|
||||
- If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
|
||||
- If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"
|
||||
|
||||
If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change '<name>'. Delta spec analysis: <include the analyzed delta spec summary>"). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Perform the archive**
|
||||
|
||||
Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Generate target name using current date: `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Check if target already exists:**
|
||||
- If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
|
||||
- If no: Move the change directory to archive
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Display summary**
|
||||
|
||||
Show archive completion summary including:
|
||||
- Change name
|
||||
- Schema that was used
|
||||
- Archive location
|
||||
- Spec sync status (synced / sync skipped / no delta specs)
|
||||
- Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Success**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs
|
||||
|
||||
All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Success (No Delta Specs)**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
**Specs:** No delta specs
|
||||
|
||||
All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Success With Warnings**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Complete (with warnings)
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
**Specs:** Sync skipped (user chose to skip)
|
||||
|
||||
**Warnings:**
|
||||
- Archived with 2 incomplete artifacts
|
||||
- Archived with 3 incomplete tasks
|
||||
- Delta spec sync was skipped (user chose to skip)
|
||||
|
||||
Review the archive if this was not intentional.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Error (Archive Exists)**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Failed
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Target:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
|
||||
Target archive directory already exists.
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. Rename the existing archive
|
||||
2. Delete the existing archive if it's a duplicate
|
||||
3. Wait until a different date to archive
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Always prompt for change selection if not provided
|
||||
- Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
|
||||
- Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
|
||||
- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
|
||||
- Show clear summary of what happened
|
||||
- If sync is requested, use the Skill tool to invoke `openspec-sync-specs` (agent-driven)
|
||||
- If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "OPSX: Explore"
|
||||
description: "Enter explore mode - think through ideas, investigate problems, clarify requirements"
|
||||
category: Workflow
|
||||
tags: [workflow, explore, experimental, thinking]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:explore` is whatever the user wants to think about. Could be:
|
||||
- A vague idea: "real-time collaboration"
|
||||
- A specific problem: "the auth system is getting unwieldy"
|
||||
- A change name: "add-dark-mode" (to explore in context of that change)
|
||||
- A comparison: "postgres vs sqlite for this"
|
||||
- Nothing (just enter explore mode)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Stance
|
||||
|
||||
- **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
|
||||
- **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
|
||||
- **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
|
||||
- **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
|
||||
- **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
|
||||
- **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Might Do
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
|
||||
|
||||
**Explore the problem space**
|
||||
- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
|
||||
- Challenge assumptions
|
||||
- Reframe the problem
|
||||
- Find analogies
|
||||
|
||||
**Investigate the codebase**
|
||||
- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
|
||||
- Find integration points
|
||||
- Identify patterns already in use
|
||||
- Surface hidden complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Compare options**
|
||||
- Brainstorm multiple approaches
|
||||
- Build comparison tables
|
||||
- Sketch tradeoffs
|
||||
- Recommend a path (if asked)
|
||||
|
||||
**Visualize**
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Use ASCII diagrams liberally │
|
||||
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ │
|
||||
│ │ State │────────▶│ State │ │
|
||||
│ │ A │ │ B │ │
|
||||
│ └────────┘ └────────┘ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ System diagrams, state machines, │
|
||||
│ data flows, architecture sketches, │
|
||||
│ dependency graphs, comparison tables │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Surface risks and unknowns**
|
||||
- Identify what could go wrong
|
||||
- Find gaps in understanding
|
||||
- Suggest spikes or investigations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Awareness
|
||||
|
||||
You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
|
||||
|
||||
### Check for context
|
||||
|
||||
At the start, quickly check what exists:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec list --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This tells you:
|
||||
- If there are active changes
|
||||
- Their names, schemas, and status
|
||||
- What the user might be working on
|
||||
|
||||
If the user mentioned a specific change name, read its artifacts for context.
|
||||
|
||||
### When no change exists
|
||||
|
||||
Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
|
||||
|
||||
- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
|
||||
- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
|
||||
|
||||
### When a change exists
|
||||
|
||||
If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read existing artifacts for context**
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
|
||||
- etc.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**
|
||||
- "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
|
||||
- "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**
|
||||
|
||||
| Insight Type | Where to Capture |
|
||||
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|
|
||||
| New requirement discovered | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Requirement changed | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Design decision made | `design.md` |
|
||||
| Scope changed | `proposal.md` |
|
||||
| New work identified | `tasks.md` |
|
||||
| Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |
|
||||
|
||||
Example offers:
|
||||
- "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
|
||||
- "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
|
||||
- "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
|
||||
|
||||
4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Don't Have To Do
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow a script
|
||||
- Ask the same questions every time
|
||||
- Produce a specific artifact
|
||||
- Reach a conclusion
|
||||
- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
|
||||
- Be brief (this is thinking time)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Ending Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
There's no required ending. Discovery might:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Flow into a proposal**: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
|
||||
- **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
|
||||
- **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
|
||||
- **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
|
||||
|
||||
When things crystallize, you might offer a summary - but it's optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
|
||||
- **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
|
||||
- **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
|
||||
- **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally
|
||||
- **Don't auto-capture** - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
|
||||
- **Do visualize** - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
|
||||
- **Do explore the codebase** - Ground discussions in reality
|
||||
- **Do question assumptions** - Including the user's and your own
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: "OPSX: Propose"
|
||||
description: Propose a new change - create it and generate all artifacts in one step
|
||||
category: Workflow
|
||||
tags: [workflow, artifacts, experimental]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.
|
||||
|
||||
I'll create a change with artifacts:
|
||||
- proposal.md (what & why)
|
||||
- design.md (how)
|
||||
- tasks.md (implementation steps)
|
||||
|
||||
When ready to implement, run /opsx:apply
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:propose` is the change name (kebab-case), OR a description of what the user wants to build.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no input provided, ask what they want to build**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
|
||||
> "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
|
||||
|
||||
From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Create the change directory**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec new change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with `.openspec.yaml`.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get the artifact build order**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to get:
|
||||
- `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
|
||||
- `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **TodoWrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
|
||||
|
||||
a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
|
||||
- Get instructions:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
- The instructions JSON includes:
|
||||
- `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `template`: The structure to use for your output file
|
||||
- `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
|
||||
- `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
|
||||
- `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
|
||||
- Read any completed dependency files for context
|
||||
- Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
|
||||
- Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
|
||||
- Show brief progress: "Created <artifact-id>"
|
||||
|
||||
b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
|
||||
- After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
|
||||
- Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
|
||||
- Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
|
||||
|
||||
c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to clarify
|
||||
- Then continue with creation
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show final status**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**
|
||||
|
||||
After completing all artifacts, summarize:
|
||||
- Change name and location
|
||||
- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
|
||||
- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
|
||||
- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:apply` to start implementing."
|
||||
|
||||
**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
|
||||
- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
|
||||
- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
|
||||
- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
|
||||
- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
|
||||
- Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
|
||||
- These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
|
||||
- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
|
||||
- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
|
||||
- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
|
||||
- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: essence
|
||||
description: Invoke when a project is too large or you only want the core design insights. Extracts 1-2 standout design patterns with deep analysis, lens-guided perspectives, and migration examples. Not for full project analysis or quick lookups.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Essence: Extract Core Design Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a jewel inspector. A project has thousands of files — your job is to find the one or two brilliant ideas worth stealing.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is NOT a lite version of `/explore`.** `/explore` reads the whole project and summarizes at the end. `/essence` goes deep on one thing and ignores everything else.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
First, check whether an `/explore` result exists:
|
||||
|
||||
- `/explore` report exists → it already identified 2-3 core designs, default to **User-directed**. Ask the user which design to deep-dive, or whether to switch mode.
|
||||
- No `/explore` result → this is an independent launch, default to **Auto-detect**.
|
||||
|
||||
Always confirm before proceeding:
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | When | Entry |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **User-directed** | Already have a design target from `/explore`, or know exactly which design to investigate | User tells you what to look for |
|
||||
| **Auto-detect** | Independent launch, project is large, want the AI to find the standout design | You find the standout design |
|
||||
| **Lens-guided** | "Analyze this from a [mechanical/intentional/evolution] perspective" | Apply a specific analytical lens |
|
||||
|
||||
### Lens definitions
|
||||
|
||||
| Lens | Core question | Guided behavior |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Mechanical** (default) | How does it work? | Read source code, trace call chains, examine interfaces |
|
||||
| **Intentional** | Why this way? | Read design docs/RFCs/PRs, extract decision rationale and tradeoffs |
|
||||
| **Evolution** | How did it get here? | Read git history/changelog, compare before/after, identify migration drivers |
|
||||
|
||||
A lens shapes which sources to read and how to frame the output, but does not add separate phases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Auto-detect signals
|
||||
|
||||
A design is "essence" if it passes 2 or more of these signals:
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | Evidence |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| README highlights it prominently | "Built on a plugin architecture" as a headline feature |
|
||||
| Has standalone architecture docs | ARCHITECTURE.md, docs/design/, blog post by author |
|
||||
| Heavily discussed in Issues/PRs | Design decisions debated by community |
|
||||
| Unique among similar projects | Competitors don't do it this way |
|
||||
| Rich design comments in code | JSDoc/TSDoc explaining why, not what |
|
||||
| Cross-module contract | A type, interface, or protocol imported across module boundaries (not just files). Go: most-implemented interface. Python: most-subclassed abstract base. Rust: most-implemented trait. These define subsystem relationships. |
|
||||
| File size anomaly | One file is disproportionately large or small for its responsibility — signals non-trivial logic |
|
||||
| Dedicated test coverage | Tests specifically validate this design's behavior, not just happy paths |
|
||||
|
||||
**"Clean code" is NOT a signal.** A well-written utility function is not essence. An architecture decision that shapes the entire project is.
|
||||
|
||||
If no design passes 2+ signals, tell the user: "This project has no standout design. Try `/explore` for a full analysis instead."
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Locate
|
||||
|
||||
**User-directed mode:**
|
||||
- Go directly to the directory or file the user names.
|
||||
- If the directory doesn't exist, stop and tell the user. Do NOT invent an alternative.
|
||||
|
||||
**Auto-detect mode:**
|
||||
- Scan README, CLAUDE.md, and top-level docs for architecture claims.
|
||||
- Identify 1-2 standout design directions.
|
||||
- Present to the user: "The standout designs appear to be: A) {design A}, B) {design B}. Which should we dive into?"
|
||||
- If user doesn't choose, pick the strongest one and state why.
|
||||
|
||||
**Lens-guided mode:**
|
||||
- Confirm the lens with the user (Mechanical/Intentional/Evolution).
|
||||
- Frame the search in terms of the lens.
|
||||
- Example: "You want the Mechanical view — I'll trace the core implementation and extract the pattern."
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** 1-2 design directions to analyze + lens confirmation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** Cannot identify any standout design → the project may be a conventional CRUD app or wrapper. Stop and recommend `/explore` or a different project.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Deep Dive
|
||||
|
||||
Read the core files related to the chosen design. Maximum 10 files. Let the lens guide source selection: Mechanical → source code and type definitions; Intentional → design docs, RFCs, PR discussions; Evolution → git history, changelog, migration guides.
|
||||
|
||||
**For each file:**
|
||||
- What role does it play in this design?
|
||||
- What interfaces does it expose?
|
||||
- How does it connect to other parts of the system?
|
||||
|
||||
**Trace the call chain:**
|
||||
- Start from the entry point that uses this design.
|
||||
- Follow the flow until you understand the full pattern.
|
||||
- Stop when you hit boilerplate, config, or test files.
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Core file list (≤10) + call chain + lens-specific annotations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** The design spans more than 10 files and you can't find the boundary → the design is probably the project's core architecture. Switch to `/explore` for a full analysis instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Extract Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Analyze the design at a higher level. Let the lens shape the analysis angle:
|
||||
- **Mechanical** → emphasize structure, interfaces, data flow — produce a pattern diagram + interface contracts
|
||||
- **Intentional** → emphasize decision rationale, tradeoffs — produce a decision record (context → options → rationale)
|
||||
- **Evolution** → emphasize before/after comparison, migration drivers — produce a timeline + catalyst events
|
||||
|
||||
**Universal analysis dimensions** (all lenses):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Problem:** What specific problem does this design solve? What was the pain before?
|
||||
- **Pattern:** What's the name of this pattern? (Named: MVC, Observer, Plugin, Middleware. Custom: describe it in one sentence.)
|
||||
- **Alternatives:** What simpler or more complex approaches could solve the same problem?
|
||||
- **Tradeoffs:** Why did the author choose this? What does it give up?
|
||||
- **Evidence:** What in the code proves this analysis is correct? (Specific files, functions, comments.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Design pattern card (lens-framed).
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** Cannot explain why the author chose this design over alternatives → read commit messages and PR discussions for design rationale. If unavailable, state "author's reasoning unknown" in the report.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Migrate
|
||||
|
||||
Make the learning actionable. Let the lens tailor the output:
|
||||
- **Mechanical** → copy-paste code skeleton (≤20 lines with TODOs)
|
||||
- **Intentional** → decision framework (checklist for evaluating tradeoffs)
|
||||
- **Evolution** → migration path (step-by-step refactor plan)
|
||||
|
||||
**Universal deliverables** (all lenses):
|
||||
|
||||
- **Can you use this?** Is the design applicable to the user's own projects? If not, why?
|
||||
- **Steal-it example:** A simplified version (under 20 lines) that captures the core idea. Not production code — a teaching example.
|
||||
- **Pitfalls:** What context does this design depend on? What would break if you copy it blindly?
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Migration example + pitfall list (lens-tailored).
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signal:** The design depends on framework internals, language features, or ecosystem the user doesn't have → explain the core idea abstractly instead of providing code.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5: Self-review
|
||||
|
||||
Check the report is honest:
|
||||
|
||||
**All modes:**
|
||||
- [ ] The design is real (not inferred, not imagined). Evidence: specific files cited.
|
||||
- [ ] The analysis is deep enough that you could explain it out loud.
|
||||
- [ ] The migration example captures the core idea, not surface syntax.
|
||||
- [ ] Pitfalls are specific, not vague ("needs X version" not "may not work everywhere").
|
||||
|
||||
**Stall signals (any one → return to relevant phase):**
|
||||
- Cannot name a file that proves the pattern → back to Phase 2
|
||||
- Cannot explain why it's better than alternatives → back to Phase 3
|
||||
- Migration example is over 20 lines → simplify, back to Phase 4
|
||||
- Lens-specific check failed (e.g., Mechanical missing end-to-end call chain, Intentional missing decision rationale, Evolution missing timeline) → back to relevant phase
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** Essence report with lens annotation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional: HTML Card
|
||||
|
||||
**Only when the user explicitly requests it.**
|
||||
|
||||
Generate an HTML visualization card as a shareable deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
### HTML Card Structure (Glassmorphism 2.0 - Essence Variant)
|
||||
|
||||
```html
|
||||
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
||||
<html lang="zh-CN">
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<meta charset="UTF-8">
|
||||
<title>{Project Name} - Essence Report</title>
|
||||
<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>
|
||||
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid/dist/mermaid.min.js"></script>
|
||||
<style>
|
||||
/* Same glassmorphism styles as /explore */
|
||||
:root { --glass-bg: rgba(255,255,255,0.4); --primary: #8b5cf6; }
|
||||
[data-theme="dark"] { --glass-bg: rgba(15,23,42,0.6); --primary: #a78bfa; }
|
||||
.glass-panel { backdrop-filter: blur(12px); border-radius: 1rem; }
|
||||
.pattern-diagram { font-family: monospace; background: rgba(0,0,0,0.03); }
|
||||
</style>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
<body class="p-8">
|
||||
<nav class="fixed top-4 left-1/2 -translate-x-1/2 w-[90%] max-w-4xl glass-panel z-50 px-6 py-3">
|
||||
<span class="font-bold text-xl">💎 {Project Name} 精华</span>
|
||||
<span class="text-sm opacity-70">Lens: {lens} | Pattern: {pattern_name}</span>
|
||||
</nav>
|
||||
|
||||
<main class="max-w-4xl mx-auto mt-24 space-y-6">
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🎯 Design Analyzed</h2>
|
||||
<p>{one-line description}</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🔷 Pattern ({lens})</h2>
|
||||
<!-- Lens-framed pattern card -->
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">🔗 Call Chain</h2>
|
||||
<pre class="mermaid">{diagram}</pre>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
<section class="glass-panel p-6">
|
||||
<h2 class="text-xl font-bold mb-4">📦 Migration Example</h2>
|
||||
<pre class="pattern-diagram"><code>{code_example}</code></pre>
|
||||
<p class="text-sm opacity-70 mt-2">Pitfalls: {pitfalls}</p>
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
</main>
|
||||
|
||||
<script>mermaid.initialize({ startOnLoad: true });</script>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
### HTML Card Generated
|
||||
|
||||
- **Path:** `outputs/{project}-essence.html`
|
||||
- **Theme:** {modern/ink}
|
||||
- **Accent Color:** Purple (essence = jewel)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**When to skip:** Skip HTML generation unless the user requests it or the analysis is production-critical. When HTML generation fails, deliver a plain-text report instead.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hard Rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **No code evidence = no conclusion.** Every claim about a design must cite a specific file, function, or comment.
|
||||
- **Under 20 lines for migration examples.** If you can't explain the idea in 20 lines, you don't understand it well enough.
|
||||
- **Stop after the report.** Do not modify the user's project or the target project.
|
||||
- **HTML is optional.** Do not block analysis on HTML generation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Gotchas
|
||||
|
||||
| What happened | Rule |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| 提取的"精华"是 AI 脑补的 | 必须有代码证据（文件 + 行号），不写空泛结论 |
|
||||
| 用户指定方向但该模块不存在 | 停止并告知用户，不编造替代方向 |
|
||||
| 项目没有 standout 设计（胶水代码） | 标记"无可提取精华"，建议改用 `/explore` |
|
||||
| Phase 4 迁移示例超过 20 行 | 简化到核心思路，不是复制生产代码 |
|
||||
| 分析了一个小工具函数 | 工具函数不是设计。设计影响整个架构，工具只解决一个问题 |
|
||||
| 从 commit message 推断作者意图但没有代码佐证 | Commit message 是辅助证据，必须有代码结构本身的支持 |
|
||||
| 透镜模式选错导致输出不符预期 | Phase 1 先确认透镜，Mechanical 读代码、Intentional 读文档、Evolution 读历史 |
|
||||
| 透镜分析流于表面 | 每个透镜有特定输出格式：Mechanical→图 + 接口，Intentional→决策记录，Evolution→时间线 |
|
||||
| HTML 卡片生成失败 | 降级到纯文本报告，不阻塞分析交付 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Essence Report: {project name}
|
||||
Lens: mechanical / intentional / evolution
|
||||
Design analyzed: {one-line description}
|
||||
Files examined: {count}
|
||||
Pattern: {pattern name or custom description}
|
||||
Migration: {steal-it example, ≤20 lines}
|
||||
HTML generated: yes / no
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the report, stop. No modifications. No follow-ups.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
|
||||
# Essence Detection Signals
|
||||
|
||||
How to identify the standout design in a project when the user doesn't specify a direction.
|
||||
|
||||
## Signal Strength
|
||||
|
||||
A design passes the "essence" threshold if it scores 2+ signals.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strong Signals (score = 1 each)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **README headline** | Project name is followed by a design claim | "Vite — Next generation frontend tooling with **ESM-first architecture**" |
|
||||
| **Architecture docs** | Standalone design document exists | `ARCHITECTURE.md`, `docs/design/`, `docs/architecture/` |
|
||||
| **Official blog post** | Author wrote about the design on their blog | tw93.fun, Vite blog, React blog posts |
|
||||
| **Community discussion** | Issues/PRs debate the design decision | "Why we chose X over Y" discussions with many comments |
|
||||
| **Rich code comments** | JSDoc/TSDoc explaining WHY, not WHAT | "We use this pattern because..." with detailed reasoning |
|
||||
|
||||
### Objective Signals (score = 1 each, no subjective judgment needed)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Cross-module contract** | A type, interface, or protocol imported across module boundaries (not just files). Go: most-implemented interface. Python: most-subclassed abstract base. Rust: most-implemented trait. | `Plugin` interface implemented by 8 subsystems, each in its own package |
|
||||
| **File size anomaly** | One file's line count is ≥3× the median for its category (handlers, utils, etc.) | Average handler: 50 lines. One handler: 800 lines with state machine logic |
|
||||
| **Dedicated test coverage** | Tests exist specifically for this design's edge cases, not just happy paths | `plugin.test.ts` tests plugin resolution, fallback, lifecycle — not just "it loads" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Weak Signals (score = 0.5 each)
|
||||
|
||||
| Signal | How to detect | Example |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Unique among competitors** | Same category, different architecture | Next.js uses SSR, Remix uses nested routes — that difference IS the essence |
|
||||
| **Most-starred files** | GitHub shows stars/bookmarks on specific files | "This file has 200+ stars on GitHub" |
|
||||
| **Core algorithm** | One file contains non-trivial logic that drives the project | Diff algorithm, compiler pass, state machine |
|
||||
| **API design** | The public API is notably elegant or unusual | `create()` returns a builder chain, not an object |
|
||||
|
||||
## Not Signals
|
||||
|
||||
These do NOT count as essence:
|
||||
|
||||
- "Clean code" or "well organized" — that's quality, not design
|
||||
- "Uses TypeScript" — that's a language choice, not architecture
|
||||
- "Has good tests" — that's engineering discipline, not design
|
||||
- "Many stars on the repo" — popularity ≠ design quality
|
||||
- "Uses the latest framework" — following trends ≠ standing out
|
||||
- Utility functions — even well-written ones are tools, not designs
|
||||
|
||||
## Auto-detect Procedure
|
||||
|
||||
When the user says "find the essence":
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read README fully.** What is the #1 feature the author leads with? That's a candidate.
|
||||
2. **Check for design docs.** Is there `ARCHITECTURE.md` or equivalent? That's a candidate.
|
||||
3. **Scan the import graph.** Which file is imported by the most other files? Use `grep -r "import.*from" src/ | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn` or equivalent. The top result is likely the core.
|
||||
4. **Check file sizes.** Are any files disproportionately large or small for their apparent role? That signals hidden complexity.
|
||||
5. **Check uniqueness.** Compare with 1-2 well-known alternatives. What does this project do differently?
|
||||
6. **Present 1-2 candidates** to the user with evidence. Let them choose or auto-select the strongest.
|
||||
|
||||
### Example Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Standout designs in {project}:
|
||||
|
||||
A) {Design A name} — evidenced by {README claim / file / doc}
|
||||
What it does: {one sentence}
|
||||
|
||||
B) {Design B name} — evidenced by {code comment / unique feature / community discussion}
|
||||
What it does: {one sentence}
|
||||
|
||||
Which should we dive into? (or I can pick the strongest)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Failure Modes
|
||||
|
||||
| Situation | Response |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| No signal passes 2+ threshold | "This project uses conventional architecture. Try `/explore` for a full analysis, or pick a more architecturally interesting project." |
|
||||
| User-specified module doesn't exist | Stop. Do NOT suggest an alternative. Tell the user the path doesn't exist. |
|
||||
| Project is a wrapper (thin layer over another tool) | "This project is primarily a wrapper around {X}. The design is in {X}, not here. Try analyzing {X} instead." |
|
||||
| Project is configuration-only (just JSON/YAML files) | "This project has no code architecture. It's configuration-driven. Try `/explore` for a full overview instead." |
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: explore
|
||||
description: Invoke when you need project-level understanding and an onboarding path. Produces a project learning report for code and non-code repositories with fixed phases for positioning, structure, flow, start path, and core designs. Not for deep code extraction or interactive teaching.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Explore: Project Understanding and Onboarding
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a project cartographer. Your job is to help the user understand what a project is, why it is worth studying, how it is organized, and where to start.
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` is the entry point for first contact with a repository or project-like artifact. It builds global understanding. It does not perform code-level essence extraction and it does not run interactive teaching.
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Type Detection
|
||||
|
||||
After the initial scan, classify the target before continuing:
|
||||
|
||||
| Type | Signals | What changes |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Code repository** | `go.mod`, `pyproject.toml`, `Cargo.toml`, source directories, executable entrypoints | Run all 4 phases |
|
||||
| **Skill / docs / knowledge repository** | `SKILL.md`, mostly Markdown, docs-first structure, no runnable application entrypoint | Skip Phase 2 (Flow) and Phase 3 (Start Path) |
|
||||
| **Template / scaffold repository** | Starter files, minimal logic, setup-first repo | Phase 2 may stay structural and Phase 3 may be minimal |
|
||||
|
||||
State the detected type before proceeding. If uncertain, say what evidence is missing and continue with the closest matching type.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Positioning & Structure
|
||||
- What this project is, why it is worth studying, and who it is for.
|
||||
- Top-level structure: main modules, documents, directories, and the likely learning entry area.
|
||||
- Tradeoffs vs alternatives when evidence exists.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Flow
|
||||
**Code repositories only.**
|
||||
- Skip for non-code and template repositories.
|
||||
- Trace the main runtime or request flow.
|
||||
- Produce at least one architecture or core-flow diagram.
|
||||
- Keep the trace focused on the golden path rather than exhaustive coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: Start Path
|
||||
**Code repositories only when runnable or meaningfully inspectable.**
|
||||
- Provide the minimal path to start learning or running the project.
|
||||
- Give the first command or first inspection step.
|
||||
- Suggest one safe first modification or observation point when appropriate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Core Designs
|
||||
- Summarize 2-3 core implementations or ideas.
|
||||
- Keep this at overview depth.
|
||||
- For each item, include what it is, where it lives, and why it matters.
|
||||
|
||||
## Minimum Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
The final `/explore` report must include:
|
||||
- Project positioning
|
||||
- Why it is worth studying
|
||||
- 2-3 core implementations or core ideas
|
||||
- Tradeoffs or comparisons when applicable
|
||||
- At least 1 diagram:
|
||||
- code repository → architecture diagram or core flow diagram
|
||||
- non-code repository → structure diagram, idea map, or workflow diagram
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` may:
|
||||
- scan structure
|
||||
- explain the main flow
|
||||
- provide a minimal start path
|
||||
- summarize 2-3 core designs
|
||||
|
||||
`/explore` must not:
|
||||
- perform `/essence`-level deep extraction
|
||||
- act as `/follow`-style guided teaching
|
||||
- include Verify, Deep Fission, or HTML Output phases
|
||||
- preserve no retired lightweight fallback behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Explore Report: {project name}
|
||||
Project type: code / skill-docs / template
|
||||
Phases completed: 4/4 (or note skipped code-only phases)
|
||||
Diagram included: yes / no
|
||||
Core designs: 2-3
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the report, stop. Do not proceed to `/essence` or `/follow` automatically.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
|
||||
# Project Analysis Methods
|
||||
|
||||
How to read and understand an unfamiliar code project.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Identify the Entry Point
|
||||
|
||||
Every project has a door. Find it first.
|
||||
|
||||
### By Language
|
||||
|
||||
| Language | Look for |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **JavaScript/TypeScript** | `package.json` → `main` / `bin` / `scripts.dev` |
|
||||
| **Python** | `setup.py` → `entry_points`, `pyproject.toml` → `[project.scripts]`, or top-level `app.py` / `main.py` / `__main__.py` |
|
||||
| **Go** | `package main` in any file, conventionally `main.go` or `cmd/*/main.go` |
|
||||
| **Rust** | `src/main.rs` or `src/bin/*.rs` |
|
||||
| **Java** | Class with `public static void main(String[] args)` |
|
||||
| **C/C++** | `main()` function, conventionally in `src/main.c` |
|
||||
| **Swift** | `main.swift` or file with `@main` attribute |
|
||||
|
||||
### In Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
| Framework | Entry point |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Next.js | `app/` or `pages/` directory, `next.config.js` |
|
||||
| React (Vite) | `src/main.tsx` or `src/main.jsx` |
|
||||
| Vue (Vite) | `src/main.ts` or `src/main.js` |
|
||||
| Express | File that calls `app.listen()` |
|
||||
| FastAPI | File that creates `FastAPI()` instance |
|
||||
| Django | `manage.py`, then project name directory with `urls.py` / `wsgi.py` |
|
||||
| Flask | `app.py` or `app/__init__.py` |
|
||||
| Spring Boot | `*Application.java` with `@SpringBootApplication` |
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Judge Project Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
Don't over-engineer simple projects. Don't under-analyze complex ones.
|
||||
|
||||
### Simple (<50 files, single language)
|
||||
- Read every source file.
|
||||
- No need for flow diagrams beyond a simple sequence.
|
||||
- A light `/explore` pass is probably enough.
|
||||
|
||||
### Standard (50-500 files, 1-2 languages)
|
||||
- Read entry point + core modules + 1-2 feature files.
|
||||
- Build 1-2 flow diagrams.
|
||||
- `/explore` is the right level.
|
||||
|
||||
### Complex (>500 files, multi-language, monorepo)
|
||||
- Read entry point + architecture docs + one representative module.
|
||||
- Use `/essence` to find standout designs, or `/explore` for one package at a time.
|
||||
- Do NOT try to understand the whole project in one pass.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Separate Core Code from Scaffolding
|
||||
|
||||
Not all files are worth reading.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ignore (scaffolding)
|
||||
- `*.config.js`, `*.config.ts` — configuration, not logic
|
||||
- `dist/`, `build/`, `out/` — generated output
|
||||
- `node_modules/`, `vendor/`, `.venv/` — dependencies
|
||||
- `*.lock`, `yarn.lock`, `go.sum` — lock files
|
||||
- `LICENSE`, `CODEOWNERS`, `.editorconfig` — project meta
|
||||
- `test/fixtures/`, `test/data/` — test data
|
||||
|
||||
### Read (core)
|
||||
- Entry point file
|
||||
- Router/middleware/config handlers
|
||||
- Model/entity/schema definitions
|
||||
- Core algorithm or business logic files
|
||||
- Files referenced most in imports
|
||||
|
||||
### Hint: Follow imports
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
entry file → import A → import B → core logic
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each import is a dependency. Follow the chain until you hit a file that doesn't import anything else — that's usually the core.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Read Unfamiliar Framework Code
|
||||
|
||||
You don't know every framework. That's fine.
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Find the routing layer first.** Every framework has a way to map URLs or events to handlers. Find it. It tells you the project's capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Follow ONE request end-to-end.** Don't try to understand all routes. Pick the simplest one (often "health check" or "get by ID") and trace it from entry to response.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Identify the framework's conventions.** Most frameworks follow a pattern:
|
||||
- MVC: Controller → Model → View
|
||||
- Middleware: Request → Middleware chain → Handler → Response
|
||||
- Component: Parent renders children, props flow down, events flow up
|
||||
- Plugin: Core calls hooks, plugins register handlers
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Don't fight the framework's abstraction.** If the project uses ORM, don't look for raw SQL. If it uses dependency injection, don't look for `new()` calls. Understand what abstraction layer they chose.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Use the framework's own docs.** If stuck on "how does this framework work?", check the official docs. Don't reverse-engineer what's documented.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
|
||||
# Flow Pattern Library
|
||||
|
||||
Common architecture patterns and how to identify them in code.
|
||||
|
||||
## MVC / MVVM / MVX
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Separation of data (Model), UI/presentation (View), and coordination logic (Controller/ViewModel).
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Directories/Files |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **MVC** | `controllers/`, `models/`, `views/` |
|
||||
| **MVVM** | `viewmodels/`, `views/`, `models/` |
|
||||
| **Layered** | `app/`, `domain/`, `infrastructure/` (Clean/Hexagonal) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Request → Controller → Model (data) → View (render) → Response
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does the file handle data, display, or coordination?" If yes → MVC-family.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Middleware Chain
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Each handler processes the request and passes it to the next. Like an assembly line.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Framework | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Express/Koa** | `app.use(...)`, `app.get('/', handler)` |
|
||||
| **FastAPI** | `@app.middleware("http")`, `Depends()` |
|
||||
| **Next.js** | `middleware.ts` at root or in `app/` |
|
||||
| **Gin (Go)** | `router.Use(middleware1, middleware2)` |
|
||||
| **Koa** | `app.use(async (ctx, next) => { ... })` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Request → Middleware A → Middleware B → Handler → Response
|
||||
↓ ↓
|
||||
auth check log request
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does this function call `next()` or pass control to something else?" If yes → middleware.
|
||||
|
||||
### Common middleware order
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. CORS / Security headers
|
||||
2. Logging / Request ID
|
||||
3. Authentication / Authorization
|
||||
4. Body parsing / Validation
|
||||
5. Rate limiting
|
||||
6. Route handler
|
||||
7. Error handler (catches everything above)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Plugin / Extension System
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Core provides hooks or interfaces. External code registers handlers. The core doesn't know about specific plugins.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Hook-based** | `registerHook('eventName', handler)`, `hooks.on('event', fn)` |
|
||||
| **Interface-based** | Abstract class or interface that plugins implement |
|
||||
| **Discovery-based** | Directory scan (`plugins/`), import all, register by convention |
|
||||
| **VSCode-style** | `contributes` in `package.json`, activation events |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Core starts
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Scans for plugins
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Each plugin registers itself
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Core fires hooks → plugins respond
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Core runs with extended capabilities
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Can I add functionality without modifying core code?" If yes → plugin architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Event-Driven
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Components communicate through events, not direct calls. Publishers emit, subscribers listen.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Node EventEmitter** | `eventEmitter.on('event', handler)`, `eventEmitter.emit('event', data)` |
|
||||
| **Pub/Sub** | `pubsub.subscribe('channel', handler)`, `pubsub.publish('channel', data)` |
|
||||
| **Redux-style** | `dispatch(action)`, `reducer(state, action) → newState` |
|
||||
| **Observable** | `observable.subscribe(fn)`, `pipe(map, filter)` |
|
||||
| **Signals (Python)** | `@signal.connect`, `signal.send()` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Component A emits "user.created"
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Listener B hears it → sends welcome email
|
||||
Listener C hears it → creates default settings
|
||||
Listener D hears it → logs analytics
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does code communicate without importing or calling each other directly?" If yes → event-driven.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## State Management
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Centralized storage for application state. Components read and update through defined interfaces.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Redux** | `createStore()`, `dispatch()`, `useSelector()`, `@reduxjs/toolkit` |
|
||||
| **Zustand** | `create((set) => ({ ... }))` |
|
||||
| **Jotai** | `atom(value)`, `useAtom(atom)` |
|
||||
| **MobX** | `@observable`, `@action`, `@computed` |
|
||||
| **React Context** | `createContext()`, `useContext()`, `Provider` |
|
||||
| **Pinia (Vue)** | `defineStore()`, `state`, `actions` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Component dispatches action
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Reducer processes action + current state
|
||||
↓
|
||||
New state emitted
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Subscribed components re-render
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Where does the app store data that multiple components need?" If it's a single store → state management pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pipeline / Chain of Responsibility
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is
|
||||
Data flows through a series of processors. Each processor transforms the data and passes it on.
|
||||
|
||||
### File signatures
|
||||
| Pattern | Indicator |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| **Stream processing** | `.pipe(transform1).pipe(transform2)` |
|
||||
| **Compiler/lexer** | Source → Tokenize → Parse → Transform → Generate |
|
||||
| **Data pipeline** | `input → transform → validate → output` |
|
||||
| **Makefile** | Target depends on prerequisites, each is a step |
|
||||
|
||||
### Flow
|
||||
```
|
||||
Raw input → Tokenizer → Parser → Transformer → Generator → Output
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Key question
|
||||
"Does data get progressively transformed through a fixed sequence of steps?" If yes → pipeline.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: follow
|
||||
description: Invoke when the user wants an interactive learning session based on an existing `/explore` or `/essence` report. Guides runnable or reader-style follow-along sessions. Not for fresh project analysis or pattern-only extraction.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
version: "0.5.0"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Follow: Guided Learning Session
|
||||
|
||||
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
|
||||
|
||||
You are a guide. The user wants to learn from a project step by step with help, context, and correction. You guide the learning process, but you do not replace it.
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` is not a fresh project analyzer. It only works from an existing `/explore` or `/essence` result.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pre-check
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` only works when there is already an `/explore` report or an `/essence` report.
|
||||
|
||||
- `/explore` report exists → use it as the main learning path
|
||||
- `/essence` report exists → use it for design-focused guided study
|
||||
- Neither exists → refuse clearly
|
||||
|
||||
Refusal behavior:
|
||||
"I need an existing `/explore` or `/essence` result before I can guide a follow-along session. Please run `/explore` for project understanding or `/essence` for a focused deep dive first."
|
||||
|
||||
Load the existing report before continuing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Selection
|
||||
|
||||
After the pre-check, select one mode based on the prerequisite report:
|
||||
|
||||
- From `/explore` + code repository → default **Runnable**
|
||||
- From `/explore` + non-code repository → force **Reader**
|
||||
- From `/essence` → default **Reader** (user is in design-analysis state)
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | When | Entry |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| **Runnable** | Report confirms the project is a runnable code repository and the user wants to learn by running and changing it | Start from environment and first execution |
|
||||
| **Reader** | Project has no runtime, or the user is studying design/architecture, or the prerequisite report is from `/essence` | Start from guided reading |
|
||||
|
||||
State the selected mode before proceeding. Do not re-scan the project — use the prerequisite report to decide.
|
||||
|
||||
## Teaching Interaction Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must teach by guidance, not by dumping answers:
|
||||
- explain the purpose of the current step first
|
||||
- give the user an observation point or action point
|
||||
- ask the user to predict, try, or explain before revealing the answer
|
||||
- then reveal, correct, or deepen the explanation
|
||||
- never say "go read the code" as a standalone instruction. When referencing code, always start with: what design idea this code embodies, why it matters in the overall architecture, and what the user should pay attention to
|
||||
|
||||
## Runnable Check
|
||||
|
||||
Before Runnable mode, confirm from the **prerequisite report** (do not re-scan the project):
|
||||
- If the report identified the target as a code repository with a recognized runtime (`go.mod`, `pyproject.toml`, `Cargo.toml`, `Makefile`, `build.gradle`, `pom.xml`, `CMakeLists.txt`, etc.), proceed with Runnable.
|
||||
- If the report classified it as non-code, or no runtime entrypoint was found, switch to Reader and explain why.
|
||||
- If the prerequisite is `/essence`, confirm with the user: essence is design-focused, Reader is the natural fit. Allow Runnable only if the user explicitly insists.
|
||||
- Do not introduce a third mode.
|
||||
|
||||
## Runnable Mode Flow
|
||||
1. Confirm environment and prerequisites.
|
||||
2. Let the user run the project.
|
||||
3. Let the user make one safe change.
|
||||
4. Walk the main flow together.
|
||||
5. Give one small exercise.
|
||||
6. Review what they learned.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reader Mode Flow
|
||||
1. Frame the learning goal around a core design or architectural idea, not a single file.
|
||||
2. Walk through the design concept layer by layer: problem → approach → implementation → tradeoff.
|
||||
3. Ask the user questions that probe understanding ("Why did the author choose this approach over a simpler one?"), not just prediction ("What happens next?").
|
||||
4. Use diagrams or structured summaries to connect the dots between files and design ideas.
|
||||
5. Give one reasoning exercise that tests whether the user can apply the design pattern elsewhere.
|
||||
6. Review what they learned.
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary Rules
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must:
|
||||
- depend on `/explore` or `/essence`
|
||||
- guide the user interactively
|
||||
- adapt between code and non-code repositories through Runnable or Reader emphasis
|
||||
|
||||
`/follow` must not:
|
||||
- rescan the whole project as a new analyzer
|
||||
- reference retired skills as prerequisites
|
||||
- add any third learning mode
|
||||
- execute commands or write code for the user
|
||||
|
||||
## Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Follow Session: {project name}
|
||||
Mode: runnable / reader
|
||||
Prerequisite report: /explore or /essence
|
||||
Exercise result: completed / partial / too hard
|
||||
Next direction: {suggested follow-up}
|
||||
Status: complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After the review, stop. Ask whether the user wants another exercise or wants to end the session.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
|
||||
# Environment Detection Rules
|
||||
|
||||
How to detect the runtime environment and guide the user through setup in `/follow`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Language Detection from Config
|
||||
|
||||
Check these files in order. The first match is the primary language.
|
||||
|
||||
| Config file | Language | Runtime check | Install command |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `package.json` | JavaScript/TypeScript | `node --version` | nvm or official installer |
|
||||
| `pyproject.toml` | Python | `python --version` | pyenv or python.org |
|
||||
| `go.mod` | Go | `go version` | golang.org/dl |
|
||||
| `Cargo.toml` | Rust | `rustc --version` | rustup |
|
||||
| `pom.xml` | Java | `java -version` | SDKMAN or official |
|
||||
| `build.gradle` / `build.gradle.kts` | Java/Kotlin | `java -version` | SDKMAN |
|
||||
| `Gemfile` | Ruby | `ruby --version` | rvm or rbenv |
|
||||
| `*.csproj` | C#/.NET | `dotnet --version` | .NET SDK |
|
||||
| `CMakeLists.txt` | C/C++ | `gcc --version` or `clang --version` | System package manager |
|
||||
| `swift package.json` | Swift | `swift --version` | Xcode or swift.org |
|
||||
|
||||
## Dependency Installation
|
||||
|
||||
Once language is detected, guide the user:
|
||||
|
||||
### JavaScript/TypeScript
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Check which package manager is used
|
||||
if [ -f "yarn.lock" ]; then yarn install
|
||||
elif [ -f "pnpm-lock.yaml" ]; then pnpm install
|
||||
elif [ -f "bun.lockb" ] || [ -f "bun.lock" ]; then bun install
|
||||
else npm install
|
||||
fi
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Python
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Modern Python projects
|
||||
pip install -e .
|
||||
# Or with requirements
|
||||
pip install -r requirements.txt
|
||||
# Or with poetry
|
||||
poetry install
|
||||
# Or with uv
|
||||
uv pip install -r requirements.txt
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Go
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
go mod download
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Rust
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cargo build
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Java (Maven)
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mvn install
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Java (Gradle)
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./gradlew build
|
||||
# or
|
||||
gradle build
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Run Command Detection
|
||||
|
||||
How to start the project:
|
||||
|
||||
| Source | Command |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `package.json` → `scripts.dev` | `npm run dev` |
|
||||
| `package.json` → `scripts.start` | `npm start` |
|
||||
| `Makefile` → `dev` target | `make dev` |
|
||||
| `Makefile` → `run` target | `make run` |
|
||||
| `pyproject.toml` (Poetry) | `poetry run python main.py` |
|
||||
| `go.mod` → `package main` | `go run main.go` |
|
||||
| `Cargo.toml` → `[[bin]]` | `cargo run` |
|
||||
| `docker-compose.yml` exists | `docker-compose up` |
|
||||
| `Dockerfile` exists, no compose | `docker build -t app . && docker run app` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Environment Issues
|
||||
|
||||
| Error | Cause | Fix |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `command not found: node` | Node.js not installed | Install Node.js (recommend LTS) |
|
||||
| `ModuleNotFoundError` | Python deps not installed | Run `pip install -r requirements.txt` |
|
||||
| `EACCES: permission denied` | Global install without sudo | Use nvm/fnm, or prefix with sudo |
|
||||
| `ENOENT: no such file` | Wrong working directory | `cd` to project root first |
|
||||
| `port already in use` | Another process on same port | Kill the process or use different port |
|
||||
| `go: cannot find main module` | Outside Go module | `cd` to directory with `go.mod` |
|
||||
| `error: could not find Cargo.toml` | Outside Rust project | `cd` to directory with `Cargo.toml` |
|
||||
| `java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError` | Wrong Java version | Match JDK version to project requirement |
|
||||
| `npm ERR! code ERESOLVE` | Dependency conflict | Try `npm install --legacy-peer-deps` |
|
||||
|
||||
## Detection Script for /follow
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Quick environment check
|
||||
echo "=== Environment ==="
|
||||
node --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Node.js: not installed"
|
||||
python --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Python: not installed"
|
||||
go version 2>/dev/null || echo "Go: not installed"
|
||||
rustc --version 2>/dev/null || echo "Rust: not installed"
|
||||
java -version 2>/dev/null || echo "Java: not installed"
|
||||
echo "PWD: $(pwd)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Run this at the start of `/follow` Step 1 to understand what's available.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-apply-change
|
||||
description: Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change. Use when the user wants to start implementing, continue implementation, or work through tasks.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Select the change**
|
||||
|
||||
If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:
|
||||
- Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
|
||||
- Auto-select if only one active change exists
|
||||
- If ambiguous, run `openspec list --json` to get available changes and use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select
|
||||
|
||||
Always announce: "Using change: <name>" and how to override (e.g., `/opsx:apply <other>`).
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check status to understand the schema**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
|
||||
- Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get apply instructions**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This returns:
|
||||
- `contextFiles`: artifact ID -> array of concrete file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
|
||||
- Progress (total, complete, remaining)
|
||||
- Task list with status
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction based on current state
|
||||
|
||||
**Handle states:**
|
||||
- If `state: "blocked"` (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
|
||||
- If `state: "all_done"`: congratulate, suggest archive
|
||||
- Otherwise: proceed to implementation
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Read context files**
|
||||
|
||||
Read every file path listed under `contextFiles` from the apply instructions output.
|
||||
The files depend on the schema being used:
|
||||
- **spec-driven**: proposal, specs, design, tasks
|
||||
- Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show current progress**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Schema being used
|
||||
- Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- Remaining tasks overview
|
||||
- Dynamic instruction from CLI
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)**
|
||||
|
||||
For each pending task:
|
||||
- Show which task is being worked on
|
||||
- Make the code changes required
|
||||
- Keep changes minimal and focused
|
||||
- Mark task complete in the tasks file: `- [ ]` → `- [x]`
|
||||
- Continue to next task
|
||||
|
||||
**Pause if:**
|
||||
- Task is unclear → ask for clarification
|
||||
- Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
|
||||
- Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
|
||||
- User interrupts
|
||||
|
||||
7. **On completion or pause, show status**
|
||||
|
||||
Display:
|
||||
- Tasks completed this session
|
||||
- Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
|
||||
- If all done: suggest archive
|
||||
- If paused: explain why and wait for guidance
|
||||
|
||||
**Output During Implementation**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 3/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
|
||||
Working on task 4/7: <task description>
|
||||
[...implementation happening...]
|
||||
✓ Task complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Completion**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### Completed This Session
|
||||
- [x] Task 1
|
||||
- [x] Task 2
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Implementation Paused
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete
|
||||
|
||||
### Issue Encountered
|
||||
<description of the issue>
|
||||
|
||||
**Options:**
|
||||
1. <option 1>
|
||||
2. <option 2>
|
||||
3. Other approach
|
||||
|
||||
What would you like to do?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
|
||||
- Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
|
||||
- If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
|
||||
- If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
|
||||
- Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
|
||||
- Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
|
||||
- Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
|
||||
- Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names
|
||||
|
||||
**Fluid Workflow Integration**
|
||||
|
||||
This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Can be invoked anytime**: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
|
||||
- **Allows artifact updates**: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-archive-change
|
||||
description: Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow. Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no change name provided, prompt for selection**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec list --json` to get available changes. Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** to let the user select.
|
||||
|
||||
Show only active changes (not already archived).
|
||||
Include the schema used for each change if available.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Check artifact completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json` to check artifact completion.
|
||||
|
||||
Parse the JSON to understand:
|
||||
- `schemaName`: The workflow being used
|
||||
- `artifacts`: List of artifacts with their status (`done` or other)
|
||||
|
||||
**If any artifacts are not `done`:**
|
||||
- Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Check task completion status**
|
||||
|
||||
Read the tasks file (typically `tasks.md`) to check for incomplete tasks.
|
||||
|
||||
Count tasks marked with `- [ ]` (incomplete) vs `- [x]` (complete).
|
||||
|
||||
**If incomplete tasks found:**
|
||||
- Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to confirm user wants to proceed
|
||||
- Proceed if user confirms
|
||||
|
||||
**If no tasks file exists:** Proceed without task-related warning.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Assess delta spec sync state**
|
||||
|
||||
Check for delta specs at `openspec/changes/<name>/specs/`. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.
|
||||
|
||||
**If delta specs exist:**
|
||||
- Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`
|
||||
- Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
|
||||
- Show a combined summary before prompting
|
||||
|
||||
**Prompt options:**
|
||||
- If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
|
||||
- If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"
|
||||
|
||||
If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change '<name>'. Delta spec analysis: <include the analyzed delta spec summary>"). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Perform the archive**
|
||||
|
||||
Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Generate target name using current date: `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>`
|
||||
|
||||
**Check if target already exists:**
|
||||
- If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
|
||||
- If no: Move the change directory to archive
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
6. **Display summary**
|
||||
|
||||
Show archive completion summary including:
|
||||
- Change name
|
||||
- Schema that was used
|
||||
- Archive location
|
||||
- Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
|
||||
- Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Output On Success**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Archive Complete
|
||||
|
||||
**Change:** <change-name>
|
||||
**Schema:** <schema-name>
|
||||
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
|
||||
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")
|
||||
|
||||
All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Always prompt for change selection if not provided
|
||||
- Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
|
||||
- Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
|
||||
- Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
|
||||
- Show clear summary of what happened
|
||||
- If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
|
||||
- If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-explore
|
||||
description: Enter explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing.** You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.
|
||||
|
||||
**This is a stance, not a workflow.** There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Stance
|
||||
|
||||
- **Curious, not prescriptive** - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
|
||||
- **Open threads, not interrogations** - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
|
||||
- **Visual** - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
|
||||
- **Adaptive** - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
|
||||
- **Patient** - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
|
||||
- **Grounded** - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Might Do
|
||||
|
||||
Depending on what the user brings, you might:
|
||||
|
||||
**Explore the problem space**
|
||||
- Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
|
||||
- Challenge assumptions
|
||||
- Reframe the problem
|
||||
- Find analogies
|
||||
|
||||
**Investigate the codebase**
|
||||
- Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
|
||||
- Find integration points
|
||||
- Identify patterns already in use
|
||||
- Surface hidden complexity
|
||||
|
||||
**Compare options**
|
||||
- Brainstorm multiple approaches
|
||||
- Build comparison tables
|
||||
- Sketch tradeoffs
|
||||
- Recommend a path (if asked)
|
||||
|
||||
**Visualize**
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Use ASCII diagrams liberally │
|
||||
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ │
|
||||
│ │ State │────────▶│ State │ │
|
||||
│ │ A │ │ B │ │
|
||||
│ └────────┘ └────────┘ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ System diagrams, state machines, │
|
||||
│ data flows, architecture sketches, │
|
||||
│ dependency graphs, comparison tables │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Surface risks and unknowns**
|
||||
- Identify what could go wrong
|
||||
- Find gaps in understanding
|
||||
- Suggest spikes or investigations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec Awareness
|
||||
|
||||
You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.
|
||||
|
||||
### Check for context
|
||||
|
||||
At the start, quickly check what exists:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec list --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This tells you:
|
||||
- If there are active changes
|
||||
- Their names, schemas, and status
|
||||
- What the user might be working on
|
||||
|
||||
### When no change exists
|
||||
|
||||
Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:
|
||||
|
||||
- "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
|
||||
- Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize
|
||||
|
||||
### When a change exists
|
||||
|
||||
If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read existing artifacts for context**
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/design.md`
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`
|
||||
- etc.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Reference them naturally in conversation**
|
||||
- "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
|
||||
- "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Offer to capture when decisions are made**
|
||||
|
||||
| Insight Type | Where to Capture |
|
||||
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|
|
||||
| New requirement discovered | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Requirement changed | `specs/<capability>/spec.md` |
|
||||
| Design decision made | `design.md` |
|
||||
| Scope changed | `proposal.md` |
|
||||
| New work identified | `tasks.md` |
|
||||
| Assumption invalidated | Relevant artifact |
|
||||
|
||||
Example offers:
|
||||
- "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
|
||||
- "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
|
||||
- "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"
|
||||
|
||||
4. **The user decides** - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What You Don't Have To Do
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow a script
|
||||
- Ask the same questions every time
|
||||
- Produce a specific artifact
|
||||
- Reach a conclusion
|
||||
- Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
|
||||
- Be brief (this is thinking time)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Handling Different Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
**User brings a vague idea:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration
|
||||
|
||||
You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...
|
||||
|
||||
COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
|
||||
════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
|
||||
Awareness Coordination Sync
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐
|
||||
│Presence│ │Cursors │ │ CRDT │
|
||||
│ "3 │ │ Multi │ │Conflict│
|
||||
│online" │ │ select │ │ free │
|
||||
└────────┘ └────────┘ └────────┘
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
trivial moderate complex
|
||||
|
||||
Where's your head at?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User brings a specific problem:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: The auth system is a mess
|
||||
|
||||
You: [reads codebase]
|
||||
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ CURRENT AUTH FLOW │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
│
|
||||
┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
|
||||
▼ ▼ ▼
|
||||
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
|
||||
│ Google │ │ GitHub │ │ Email │
|
||||
│ OAuth │ │ OAuth │ │ Magic │
|
||||
└────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘
|
||||
│ │ │
|
||||
└─────────────┼─────────────┘
|
||||
▼
|
||||
┌───────────┐
|
||||
│ Session │
|
||||
└─────┬─────┘
|
||||
│
|
||||
▼
|
||||
┌───────────┐
|
||||
│ Perms │
|
||||
└───────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
I see three tangles. Which one's burning?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User is stuck mid-implementation:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
|
||||
The OAuth integration is more complex than expected
|
||||
|
||||
You: [reads change artifacts]
|
||||
|
||||
You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"
|
||||
|
||||
Let me trace what's involved...
|
||||
|
||||
[draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]
|
||||
|
||||
Want to update the design to reflect this?
|
||||
Or add a spike task to investigate?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**User wants to compare options:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?
|
||||
|
||||
You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?
|
||||
|
||||
User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments
|
||||
|
||||
You: That changes everything.
|
||||
|
||||
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE │
|
||||
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
Key constraints:
|
||||
• No daemon running
|
||||
• Must work offline
|
||||
• Single user
|
||||
|
||||
SQLite Postgres
|
||||
Deployment embedded ✓ needs server ✗
|
||||
Offline yes ✓ no ✗
|
||||
Single file yes ✓ no ✗
|
||||
|
||||
SQLite. Not even close.
|
||||
|
||||
Unless... is there a sync component?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Ending Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
There's no required ending. Discovery might:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Flow into a proposal**: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
|
||||
- **Result in artifact updates**: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
|
||||
- **Just provide clarity**: User has what they need, moves on
|
||||
- **Continue later**: "We can pick this up anytime"
|
||||
|
||||
When it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## What We Figured Out
|
||||
|
||||
**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]
|
||||
|
||||
**The approach**: [if one emerged]
|
||||
|
||||
**Open questions**: [if any remain]
|
||||
|
||||
**Next steps** (if ready):
|
||||
- Create a change proposal
|
||||
- Keep exploring: just keep talking
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
- **Don't implement** - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
|
||||
- **Don't fake understanding** - If something is unclear, dig deeper
|
||||
- **Don't rush** - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
|
||||
- **Don't force structure** - Let patterns emerge naturally
|
||||
- **Don't auto-capture** - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
|
||||
- **Do visualize** - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
|
||||
- **Do explore the codebase** - Ground discussions in reality
|
||||
- **Do question assumptions** - Including the user's and your own
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: openspec-propose
|
||||
description: Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.
|
||||
license: MIT
|
||||
compatibility: Requires openspec CLI.
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
author: openspec
|
||||
version: "1.0"
|
||||
generatedBy: "1.3.1"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Propose a new change - create the change and generate all artifacts in one step.
|
||||
|
||||
I'll create a change with artifacts:
|
||||
- proposal.md (what & why)
|
||||
- design.md (how)
|
||||
- tasks.md (implementation steps)
|
||||
|
||||
When ready to implement, run /opsx:apply
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Input**: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **AskUserQuestion tool** (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:
|
||||
> "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."
|
||||
|
||||
From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → `add-user-auth`).
|
||||
|
||||
**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Create the change directory**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec new change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
This creates a scaffolded change at `openspec/changes/<name>/` with `.openspec.yaml`.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Get the artifact build order**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
Parse the JSON to get:
|
||||
- `applyRequires`: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., `["tasks"]`)
|
||||
- `artifacts`: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready**
|
||||
|
||||
Use the **TodoWrite tool** to track progress through the artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):
|
||||
|
||||
a. **For each artifact that is `ready` (dependencies satisfied)**:
|
||||
- Get instructions:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
- The instructions JSON includes:
|
||||
- `context`: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `rules`: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
|
||||
- `template`: The structure to use for your output file
|
||||
- `instruction`: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
|
||||
- `outputPath`: Where to write the artifact
|
||||
- `dependencies`: Completed artifacts to read for context
|
||||
- Read any completed dependency files for context
|
||||
- Create the artifact file using `template` as the structure
|
||||
- Apply `context` and `rules` as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
|
||||
- Show brief progress: "Created <artifact-id>"
|
||||
|
||||
b. **Continue until all `applyRequires` artifacts are complete**
|
||||
- After creating each artifact, re-run `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`
|
||||
- Check if every artifact ID in `applyRequires` has `status: "done"` in the artifacts array
|
||||
- Stop when all `applyRequires` artifacts are done
|
||||
|
||||
c. **If an artifact requires user input** (unclear context):
|
||||
- Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to clarify
|
||||
- Then continue with creation
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Show final status**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
openspec status --change "<name>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Output**
|
||||
|
||||
After completing all artifacts, summarize:
|
||||
- Change name and location
|
||||
- List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
|
||||
- What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
|
||||
- Prompt: "Run `/opsx:apply` or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."
|
||||
|
||||
**Artifact Creation Guidelines**
|
||||
|
||||
- Follow the `instruction` field from `openspec instructions` for each artifact type
|
||||
- The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
|
||||
- Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
|
||||
- Use `template` as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
|
||||
- **IMPORTANT**: `context` and `rules` are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
|
||||
- Do NOT copy `<context>`, `<rules>`, `<project_context>` blocks into the artifact
|
||||
- These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrails**
|
||||
- Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's `apply.requires`)
|
||||
- Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
|
||||
- If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
|
||||
- If a change with that name already exists, ask if user wants to continue it or create a new one
|
||||
- Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: sm-flow
|
||||
description: OpenSpec-first 的结构化工程开发协议层 harness。编排 OpenSpec 的完整生命周期，通过阶段、门控、人类对齐和长期记忆，约束 agent 以正确的顺序、条件和标准使用 OpenSpec。用户想把粗略想法、issue、PRD 或已有 research 推进为准确 OpenSpec change，并通过 OpenSpec apply 实现、验证、归档时使用。
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# SM Flow
|
||||
|
||||
SM Flow 是一个**协议层 harness**——编排 OpenSpec 的完整生命周期。它通过阶段、门控、人类对齐和长期记忆，约束 agent 以正确的顺序、条件和标准使用 OpenSpec。
|
||||
|
||||
sm-flow 会自动维护 `devflow/` 目录作为项目长期记忆。用户不需要手动管理它，sm-flow 会在流程中自动读取和回填。
|
||||
|
||||
## 四层架构
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
sm-flow → 编排层（harness）：阶段、门控、产物约束、人类对齐
|
||||
OpenSpec → 执行引擎：propose/apply/archive 的能力提供方
|
||||
devflow/ → 记忆层：为编排层提供上下文，接收执行结果的回填
|
||||
code → 实现结果：apply 的产出
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec 是唯一执行真理源：apply 阶段只能基于 OpenSpec 执行，不能绕过 OpenSpec 直接写代码。
|
||||
- devflow 是上下文真理源：术语、历史决策、验收记录来自 devflow，用于增强 OpenSpec，不替代 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 如果 devflow 和 OpenSpec 冲突，先汇报冲突、让用户确认、修正 OpenSpec，再继续执行。
|
||||
- propose 阶段产出的 OpenSpec 默认为 **Draft OpenSpec**：它是澄清和审计对象，不是 apply 的执行许可。
|
||||
- 只有通过 commit 检查后的 OpenSpec 才是 **Committed OpenSpec**；apply 只能执行 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
|
||||
## 核心规则
|
||||
|
||||
以下 6 条是硬约束，违反即流程失败。其余约束按阶段定义在 `references/phase-contracts.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
1. **OpenSpec 是唯一执行真理源**。apply 阶段必须读取 Committed OpenSpec 文件作为执行依据；对话中的描述不等于产物。Draft OpenSpec 是讨论对象，不是执行许可。
|
||||
2. **不得跳过 context**。生成 OpenSpec 前，必须先读取相关 devflow 上下文（glossary、ADR、历史项目）。
|
||||
3. **不得跳过 grill**。即使需求看起来很清楚，至少解决三个高价值澄清或验证问题。
|
||||
4. **不得跳过 commit**。进入 apply 前，Draft OpenSpec 必须通过 commit 检查成为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
5. **冲突必须先分类再处理**。OpenSpec 不准（规格遗漏）→ 修正 OpenSpec；代码偏离（实现偏差）→ 修正代码；不确定或涉及设计方向 → 暂停并等待用户确认。
|
||||
6. **子 skill 必须显式调用**。每个阶段指定的子 skill 必须显式调用；如果子 skill 不存在，流程失败，不得静默跳过或降级执行。
|
||||
|
||||
每个阶段的过程约束（question pool、one-at-a-time、cross-artifact 对齐、冲突回写等）和质量约束（可观测产出要求）见 `references/phase-contracts.md` 中对应阶段的退出条件和 checkpoint。
|
||||
|
||||
## 用户命令
|
||||
|
||||
| 命令 | 用户意图 | harness 内部行为 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `/sm-flow` | 完整流程 | clarify → context → propose → grill → specify → audit → commit → apply → archive |
|
||||
| `/sm-flow explore` | 先想想 | 带上下文的探索模式 |
|
||||
| `/sm-flow apply` | 只执行 | 检查 commit gate → apply |
|
||||
| `/sm-flow archive` | 收尾 | 回填 devflow + 归档确认 |
|
||||
|
||||
用户也可以用自然语言指定从某个阶段继续，例如"ops-message-support 的 grill 已经做完了，继续"。harness 识别意图后，自动补做最小前置检查，然后从指定阶段继续。
|
||||
|
||||
## 首次加载
|
||||
|
||||
执行前只读取当前任务需要的 reference 文件：
|
||||
|
||||
- 需要执行阶段时，先读取 `references/phase-contracts.md`；如果当前阶段涉及接口影响分级、分档、启动规则、快速模式或完成标准，再补读 `references/operating-rules.md`。
|
||||
- 创建或更新 PRD、ADR、验收报告、词汇表、复合知识文档时，读取 `references/templates.md`。
|
||||
- archive 阶段或需要从 OpenSpec 提取产物时，读取 `references/archive-rules.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 内部阶段
|
||||
|
||||
9 个内部阶段，按执行顺序：
|
||||
|
||||
1. clarify — 入口澄清：接收初始需求，澄清到可生成轻量 proposal。
|
||||
2. context — 上下文收集：读取 devflow 的 glossary、ADR、历史项目、compound knowledge。
|
||||
3. propose — 轻量 propose：只生成 proposal.md，不调用 openspec-propose。
|
||||
4. grill — 人类对齐澄清：evidence-driven 查证 + user-interview one-at-a-time，回写 proposal。
|
||||
5. specify — 细化 + 对齐：基于已稳定的 proposal 补全 design/specs/tasks，做 cross-artifact 对齐。
|
||||
6. audit — 架构审计：审计结果如果影响实现，回写 OpenSpec design/tasks。
|
||||
7. commit — Commit OpenSpec：检查 Draft OpenSpec 是否达到可执行状态，提交为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
8. apply — OpenSpec 执行：基于 Committed OpenSpec 实现代码。
|
||||
9. archive — 回填 + 归档：从 OpenSpec 产物和 decisions.md 提炼长期档案，询问是否归档。
|
||||
|
||||
每个阶段的进入条件、动作、输出和退出标准见 `references/phase-contracts.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
关键阶段的完成判断也以 `references/phase-contracts.md` 为准；如果缺少显式 checkpoint 或能力来源声明，该阶段不得视为已完成。
|
||||
|
||||
## 快速模式
|
||||
|
||||
快速模式的具体约束见 `references/operating-rules.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
## 完成标准
|
||||
|
||||
流程完成标准见 `references/operating-rules.md`。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
|
||||
# 归档规则
|
||||
|
||||
archive 阶段的目标是把 OpenSpec 产物、实现结果和过程日志转化为持久、可读、可复用的项目记忆。sm-flow 在 clarify → apply 期间只维护 `decisions.md` 作为过程日志，archive 阶段从中提取完整 devflow 档案。
|
||||
|
||||
## 目录规则
|
||||
|
||||
项目档案路径：
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
archive 阶段创建以下文件：
|
||||
|
||||
- `brief.md`：从 proposal.md 提取背景、目标、范围、非目标。
|
||||
- `evidence.md`：从 decisions.md 中的 evidence-driven 记录提取。
|
||||
- `decisions.md`：保持为最终版，整理格式。
|
||||
- `acceptance.md`：从实现结果和验证结果提取。
|
||||
|
||||
同时维护仓库级索引：
|
||||
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md`
|
||||
|
||||
按需创建以下扩展文件：
|
||||
|
||||
- `prd.md`
|
||||
- `research.md`
|
||||
- `design.md`
|
||||
- `tasks.md`
|
||||
- `alignment.md`
|
||||
- `adr/*.md`
|
||||
|
||||
不要逐字复制完整 OpenSpec 文件，也不要重复 OpenSpec 的 proposal/design/tasks。应提炼 OpenSpec 如何指导执行：背景、证据、用户决策、任务状态、假设、验证结果、风险，以及执行中对 OpenSpec 的修正。
|
||||
|
||||
## 产物分档
|
||||
|
||||
| 分档 | 适用场景 | 必须文件 | 扩展文件 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| `micro` | 小改动、低风险、需求明确 | `brief.md`、`decisions.md`、`acceptance.md` | 证据少时并入 `brief.md` |
|
||||
| `standard` | 默认模式 | `brief.md`、`evidence.md`、`decisions.md`、`acceptance.md` | 按需 ADR/compound |
|
||||
| `complex` | 高风险、跨模块、需求不清、多人协作 | standard 全部文件 | 按需 `prd.md`、`research.md`、`design.md`、`tasks.md`、`alignment.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
## 提取映射
|
||||
|
||||
| 来源 | 提取内容 | 写入位置 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| `decisions.md`（过程日志） | question pool、evidence-driven 汇报状态、user-interview 确认状态、关键取舍 | `decisions.md`（整理格式为最终版） |
|
||||
| `decisions.md`（过程日志） | evidence-driven 结论、代码/文档证据 | `evidence.md` |
|
||||
| `proposal.md` | 为什么做、做什么、范围、非目标 | `brief.md` |
|
||||
| `design.md` | 技术方案、关键决策、风险；只提炼长期有用内容 | `evidence.md` / 按需 `design.md` |
|
||||
| `specs/**/*.md` | requirement 标题和 scenario 意图 | `brief.md` 或 `acceptance.md` 的验收追踪 |
|
||||
| `tasks.md` | checkbox 状态、剩余工作、执行切片 | `acceptance.md`；复杂项目可拆 `tasks.md` |
|
||||
| 测试/构建输出 | 验证命令、结果、验证类型 | `acceptance.md` |
|
||||
| diagnose 记录 | 根因、修复、回归验证 | `acceptance.md` |
|
||||
| 词汇表更新 | 术语和业务规则 | `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md` |
|
||||
| 可复用经验 | 持久工程知识 | `devflow/compound/YYYY-MM-DD-{type}-{slug}.md` |
|
||||
| 项目索引 | 日期、slug、领域、关键词、关联 OpenSpec、状态 | `devflow/index.md` |
|
||||
|
||||
## 索引维护规则
|
||||
|
||||
`devflow/index.md` 是 context 阶段的默认入口，archive 阶段回填时必须维护。
|
||||
|
||||
最小字段：
|
||||
|
||||
| 日期 | slug | 领域 | 关键词 | 关联 OpenSpec | 状态 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
|
||||
规则：
|
||||
|
||||
- 每个 `devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/` 默认对应一行索引。
|
||||
- archive 阶段新建或更新项目档案时，必须新增或更新对应行。
|
||||
- 如果项目仍在进行，状态写 `active`；已验收但未 archive 写 `accepted-unarchived`；已 archive 写 `archived`；暂停写 `paused`。
|
||||
- 关键词只放能帮助 context 阶段定位的术语，不复制 brief 内容。
|
||||
- 如果无法准确判断领域或状态，写 `unknown`，并在 `acceptance.md` 记录待补。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验收记录规则
|
||||
|
||||
必须真实记录验证情况，并按类型分类：
|
||||
|
||||
- **静态验证**：语法检查、grep/rg 检查、结构检查、类型检查等不运行完整功能的验证。
|
||||
- **脚本验证**：生成脚本、测试命令、构建命令、自动化检查等可重复命令。
|
||||
- **浏览器/人工验证**：需要用户或代理在界面中点击、观察、确认的行为验证。
|
||||
- **未验证**：未运行的验证必须记录原因、风险和建议补验步骤。
|
||||
|
||||
记录要求：
|
||||
|
||||
- 如果验证通过，记录命令/步骤和覆盖范围。
|
||||
- 如果验证失败，记录失败摘要和是否阻塞验收。
|
||||
- 如果需要人工验证，列出明确步骤，不要用"手动测试一下"这种模糊描述。
|
||||
|
||||
## ADR 规则
|
||||
|
||||
同时满足以下条件时创建 ADR：
|
||||
|
||||
1. 决策难以逆转。
|
||||
2. 缺少上下文会让未来维护者困惑。
|
||||
3. 决策来自真实权衡，而不是简单偏好。
|
||||
|
||||
项目内 ADR 存放于：
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/adr/
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
跨项目可复用决策或经验存放于：
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
devflow/compound/YYYY-MM-DD-decision-{slug}.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 归档确认
|
||||
|
||||
OpenSpec archive 是显式 human-in-the-loop 动作。archive 前必须确认 devflow 已经回填 OpenSpec 的关键执行信息：
|
||||
|
||||
- archive 阶段可以建议 archive，但必须先询问用户。
|
||||
- 在用户确认前，不要执行 archive。
|
||||
- 如果用户暂不归档，在 acceptance 中记录原因或状态。
|
||||
- 如果用户确认归档，执行后记录 archive 结果和剩余档案位置。
|
||||
|
||||
## 归档交接
|
||||
|
||||
archive 阶段结束时告诉用户：
|
||||
|
||||
- 创建或更新了哪些档案文件。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 是否已更新。
|
||||
- 运行了哪些验证，并按静态验证、脚本验证、浏览器/人工验证、未验证分类。
|
||||
- 还剩哪些风险或后续事项。
|
||||
- 明确询问：是否现在 archive OpenSpec change？
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
||||
# 运行规则
|
||||
|
||||
本文件承载稳定但不必放在顶层 `SKILL.md` 的运行规则。
|
||||
|
||||
## 接口影响分级
|
||||
|
||||
接口影响分级判断的是"记录在哪里、是否需要独立文档"，不是判断"是否需要关注"。凡涉及字段、DTO、service 方法、API、事件、回调、数据库契约、命令契约、跨模块调用语义或内部决策逻辑变化，都必须先做分级。
|
||||
|
||||
| 级别 | 判断条件 | 产物要求 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| L1 内部实现 | 不改变任何调用方可观察的接口、字段、状态、错误码、数据范围、排序、过滤、权限结果、状态流转、副作用或文档承诺 | 不需要接口影响文档，只在 OpenSpec tasks 或 acceptance 记录验证 |
|
||||
| L2 内部接口 | 改 DTO、service 方法、内部事件、内部 RPC 或内部判断逻辑，且所有消费者都在同一实现范围内 | 必须记录接口影响范围，可内联到 OpenSpec design/specs/tasks 或 devflow evidence/decisions |
|
||||
| L3 协作接口 | 影响其他模块、其他服务、前端、外部系统、跨团队消费者、数据库契约、消息事件、回调或 SDK | 必须产出独立接口文档或等价独立章节 |
|
||||
| L4 破坏性接口 | 删除字段、改字段语义、改状态机、改错误码、破坏兼容、旧调用方可能失败，或需要迁移、灰度、回滚 | 独立接口文档 + 迁移/回滚说明；必要时创建 ADR |
|
||||
|
||||
判断策略：
|
||||
|
||||
- 如果只是修复 bug，让接口回到原 OpenSpec 或原文档承诺，通常是 L1/L2。
|
||||
- 如果判断逻辑改变了返回数据、错误码、状态、权限结果、排序/过滤、幂等性、时序或副作用，至少按 L3 检查。
|
||||
- 如果旧调用方不改代码会失败、少数据、多数据、状态不同或错误码不同，按 L4 处理。
|
||||
- 如果无法确定调用方边界或兼容性，默认提高一级并作为 `user-interview` 问题等待确认。
|
||||
|
||||
## 启动检查
|
||||
|
||||
1. 识别用户命令意图：
|
||||
- `/sm-flow`（无参数）：完整流程，从 clarify 开始。
|
||||
- `/sm-flow apply [change]`：只执行，检查 commit gate → apply。
|
||||
- `/sm-flow explore`：带上下文的探索模式，不走标准阶段链。
|
||||
- `/sm-flow archive [change]`：收尾，回填 devflow + 归档确认。
|
||||
- 自然语言指定阶段继续：识别意图后，自动补做最小前置检查，然后从指定阶段继续。
|
||||
2. 判断启动模式：
|
||||
- 完整模式：用户提供粗略想法或初始 PRD。
|
||||
- Research 模式：用户已有 research，需要转成或修正 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- PRD 文件模式：用户提供已有 PRD 路径。
|
||||
- 恢复模式：用户希望从某个阶段继续（补做最小前置检查）。
|
||||
- 快速模式：小改动，合并 gate（见下文）。
|
||||
3. 如果缺少 `devflow/`，初始化：
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/`
|
||||
- `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md`
|
||||
- `devflow/compound/`
|
||||
4. 如果根目录存在旧 `CONTEXT.md`，且 `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md` 不存在或为空，询问用户是迁移还是合并。
|
||||
5. 检查 OpenSpec 和子 skill 是否可用：
|
||||
- OpenSpec 能力：`openspec-propose`、`openspec-apply-change`、`openspec-archive-change`。
|
||||
- 辅助能力：`to-prd`、`grill-with-docs`、`diagnose`、`tdd`、`zoom-out`。
|
||||
6. 如果 OpenSpec 不可用，不要直接绕过；使用内置执行协议（见 `references/fallbacks.md`），并在 apply 前向用户说明。
|
||||
|
||||
## 项目标识规则
|
||||
|
||||
- 整个流程使用同一个 slug。
|
||||
- 优先使用 OpenSpec change name。
|
||||
- 如果还没有，则从功能标题生成 kebab-case slug。
|
||||
- 项目档案目录格式：`devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/`。
|
||||
- 如果目录已存在，默认恢复该项目；除非用户明确要求新开一轮。
|
||||
|
||||
## Devflow 产物分层
|
||||
|
||||
Devflow 是 sm-flow 自动维护的项目长期记忆层，不复制 OpenSpec 的执行产物。
|
||||
|
||||
**过程日志**（clarify → apply 期间维护）：
|
||||
|
||||
- `decisions.md`：question pool、evidence-driven 汇报状态、user-interview 确认状态、关键取舍、风险接受、OpenSpec 回写记录、冲突分类记录。
|
||||
|
||||
**最终档案**（archive 阶段从 decisions.md + OpenSpec 产物提取）：
|
||||
|
||||
- `brief.md`：背景、目标、范围、非目标、分档、关联 OpenSpec change。
|
||||
- `evidence.md`：代码/文档证据、历史决策、evidence-driven 结论和汇报状态。
|
||||
- `acceptance.md`：实现结果、验证命令、未验证项、归档状态、后续事项。
|
||||
|
||||
**按需产物**（archive 阶段按需创建）：
|
||||
|
||||
- `prd.md`：需求复杂、用户明确要求、或需要对外协作。
|
||||
- `research.md`：存在真实调研、代码考古、竞品/API 对比或复杂方案比较。
|
||||
- `design.md`：不适合放进 OpenSpec design 的长期背景或架构审计摘要。
|
||||
- `tasks.md`：跨会话的人类追踪；执行任务仍属于 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- `alignment.md` / `clarifications.md`：仅在 gap 或澄清很多时使用。
|
||||
- `adr/*.md` 和 `compound/*.md`：仅在满足 ADR / compound knowledge 规则时使用。
|
||||
|
||||
**规模分档**：
|
||||
|
||||
- `micro`：小且低风险，gate 合并（见快速模式），最终档案同 standard。
|
||||
- `standard`：默认模式。
|
||||
- `complex`：高风险、跨模块、需求不清或多人协作时，在 standard 基础上按需增加扩展产物。
|
||||
|
||||
## 快速模式
|
||||
|
||||
快速模式适用于小而低风险的变更。它合并 gate 而不仅仅是压缩产物：
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
standard 流程：clarify → context → propose checkpoint → grill → specify → audit checkpoint → commit
|
||||
micro 流程：clarify+context 合并 checkpoint → propose+specify 合并 checkpoint → grill（最少 1 个问题） → commit（简化检查）
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
micro 的定位：**gate 变少但保留最关键的**（grill 最小澄清 + commit gate）。
|
||||
|
||||
无论什么模式，以下内容必须保留：
|
||||
|
||||
- context 最小上下文收集：至少检查 glossary 和相关 ADR。
|
||||
- grill 最小澄清：至少一个术语问题、一个边界问题、一个验收问题；evidence-driven 结论仍需汇报。
|
||||
- commit gate：确认没有未解决用户问题、接口影响已记录、OpenSpec tasks/specs 可执行。
|
||||
- apply 仍由 OpenSpec tasks/specs 驱动执行。
|
||||
- archive 轻量回填：记录验收结果、OpenSpec 链接和归档状态。
|
||||
|
||||
## 完成标准
|
||||
|
||||
只有同时满足以下条件，流程才算完成：
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec proposal/design/specs/tasks 已生成或更新到可执行状态。
|
||||
- 实现或规划工作已完成，且执行依据来自 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 已运行验证，或已记录未运行验证的原因。
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/` 包含 brief.md、evidence.md、decisions.md、acceptance.md。
|
||||
- 用户知道剩余风险与下一步，并已被询问是否归档 OpenSpec change。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
|
||||
# 阶段契约
|
||||
|
||||
本文件是 SM Flow 的逐阶段执行准则。核心原则：**sm-flow 编排 OpenSpec，OpenSpec 指挥执行，执行结果回填 devflow**。
|
||||
|
||||
执行顺序：clarify → context → propose → grill → specify → audit → commit → apply → archive。
|
||||
|
||||
## clarify — 入口澄清
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：用户提供粗略想法、初始 PRD、已有 research、issue，或要求启动 SM Flow。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 收集问题、期望结果、目标用户、涉及代码区域、约束条件和可能的非目标。
|
||||
- 如果用户已有 research，先识别它是否已经包含用户价值、技术方案、验收标准和任务拆分。
|
||||
- 如果输入过于模糊，最多追加三轮聚焦问题。
|
||||
- 当答案会改变 OpenSpec proposal/specs/tasks 时，优先一次只问一个问题。
|
||||
- 如果需要判断 `micro / standard / complex` 分档，补读 `references/operating-rules.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- 问题可以用 1-2 句话说清楚。
|
||||
- 期望结果可以用 1-2 句话说清楚。
|
||||
- 已列出已知影响代码或模块；如果未知，也明确标记。
|
||||
- 可以生成 OpenSpec change slug。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 入口摘要。
|
||||
- 初步 slug。
|
||||
- devflow 规模分档：`micro` / `standard` / `complex`。
|
||||
|
||||
## context — 上下文收集
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：clarify 已经有足够信息定位领域、项目或变更方向。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 优先读取 `devflow/index.md`，按日期、slug、领域、关键词和关联 OpenSpec 定位候选项目。
|
||||
- 如果 `devflow/index.md` 不存在，先从 `devflow/projects/` 现有目录初始化轻量索引，再继续本次上下文收集。
|
||||
- 读取 `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md`，提取相关术语和业务规则。
|
||||
- 搜索 `devflow/projects/` 中相关 PRD、design、tasks、acceptance 和 ADR。
|
||||
- 搜索 `devflow/compound/` 中可复用 learning、trick、decision、explore。
|
||||
- 记录哪些上下文会影响 OpenSpec proposal/design/specs/tasks。
|
||||
- 如果发现旧根目录 `CONTEXT.md` 与 `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md` 冲突，暂停并向用户汇报。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- 已形成"OpenSpec 输入上下文摘要"。
|
||||
- 已记录 `devflow/index.md` 的使用状态：已命中 / 已初始化 / 无相关条目。
|
||||
- 已列出相关 ADR 和不能违反的历史决策。
|
||||
- 已列出需要写入或修正 OpenSpec 的上下文点。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 上下文摘要，写入 `decisions.md`（过程日志）。会影响实现的上下文必须标记为"需进入 OpenSpec"。
|
||||
|
||||
## propose — 轻量 propose
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：clarify + context 已经足够生成轻量 proposal。
|
||||
|
||||
**执行者**：sm-flow 内置协议。**不调用 openspec-propose**（完整 OpenSpec 产物留待 specify 阶段生成）。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 创建或识别 `openspec/changes/{slug}/`。
|
||||
- 写入 `proposal.md`，包含：问题、建议方案、范围、非目标、来自 devflow 的上下文约束、风险。
|
||||
- **不生成 design.md、specs/、tasks.md**——这些留待 grill 澄清需求后在 specify 阶段补全。
|
||||
- 用 context 阶段的 devflow 上下文增强 proposal。
|
||||
- 在承诺方案方向前，先检查相关仓库代码。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/{slug}/proposal.md` 存在。
|
||||
- 关键假设已显式记录。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- Draft OpenSpec proposal.md（轻量版）。
|
||||
|
||||
**Human checkpoint**：
|
||||
- 向用户简要说明 proposal 范围、关键假设、主要风险、devflow 上下文如何影响方案。
|
||||
- 询问是否继续进入 grill 澄清阶段；用户明确要求"全自动执行"时可跳过等待。
|
||||
|
||||
## grill — 人类对齐澄清
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：propose 已有轻量 proposal.md。
|
||||
|
||||
**显式子 skill**：`grill-with-docs`。进入本阶段必须调用 `.agents/skills/grill-with-docs/SKILL.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 优先使用 `grill-with-docs`。
|
||||
- 进入 grill 时先建立一个 question pool，并记录到 `decisions.md`：
|
||||
- 默认至少覆盖术语、边界、验收三个维度。
|
||||
- 如果变更涉及多模块、接口、权限、下游消费者、响应结构或生命周期规则，先把这些维度补进问题池。
|
||||
- 逐项标记每个问题的模式：
|
||||
- `evidence-driven`：问题能通过代码、文档、测试、OpenSpec 或既有 ADR 证明；代理先查证，再向用户汇报证据、结论和是否需要确认。
|
||||
- `user-interview`：问题涉及产品偏好、范围边界、验收口径、风险接受度或价值取舍；必须问用户并等待确认。
|
||||
- evidence-driven 和 user-interview 的推进节奏：先批量查证 evidence-driven 并一次性汇报结论，再逐个处理 user-interview 问题。不要把所有问题攒到最后一起问。
|
||||
- 一次只问一个 `user-interview` 问题。
|
||||
- 每个 `user-interview` 问题必须等待用户显式回答，并在 decisions.md 中记录：问题原文、用户原话、确认状态（已确认/未确认）。未确认的问题不能从 question pool 移除。
|
||||
- 单个 `user-interview` 的确认只能解除该问题本身的阻塞，不能被解释为进入 apply 或修改执行目标文件的授权。
|
||||
- 对接口影响等级、消费者边界或兼容性存在不确定时，必须作为 `user-interview` 问题等待用户确认。
|
||||
- 如果澄清结果影响实现，必须回写 proposal.md。
|
||||
- 术语一旦确认，更新 `devflow/glossary/CONTEXT.md`。
|
||||
- 对难以逆转、依赖上下文、源自真实权衡的决策创建 ADR。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- question pool 已建立并覆盖当前 change 所需维度。
|
||||
- 至少解决三个高价值澄清或验证问题，并记录每个问题属于 `evidence-driven` 还是 `user-interview`。
|
||||
- 所有 evidence-driven 结论已向用户汇报。
|
||||
- 所有 user-interview 决策已获得用户确认。
|
||||
- 没有未解决或代理代确认的 user-interview 问题。
|
||||
- 没有未判级或未确认的接口影响问题。
|
||||
- 影响实现的结论已回写 proposal.md。
|
||||
- 单个 grill 决策确认不等于 apply 授权；grill 完成后必须停在 commit，等待用户明确要求进入 apply。
|
||||
- question pool、evidence-driven 结论、user-interview 确认必须写入 `decisions.md` 文件，不能只记录在对话中。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 更新后的 proposal.md。
|
||||
- 澄清记录：写入 `decisions.md`。包含 question pool、evidence-driven 汇报状态、user-interview 确认状态。
|
||||
- 更新后的词汇表和 ADR。
|
||||
|
||||
**Human checkpoint**：
|
||||
- 汇报已解决和未解决的问题、proposal 变更、术语和 ADR 更新。
|
||||
- 询问是否继续进入 specify 细化阶段。
|
||||
|
||||
## specify — 细化 + 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：grill 已退出，需求已通过澄清稳定下来。
|
||||
|
||||
**显式子 skill**：`openspec-propose`（基于已稳定的 proposal 补全完整 OpenSpec）；`to-prd`（按需生成 PRD）。进入本阶段必须先声明调用方式。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 基于已稳定的 proposal.md 补全 design.md、specs/、tasks.md：
|
||||
- 优先调用 `openspec-propose`，输入中明确说明"proposal.md 已存在，本次只需补全 design/specs/tasks"。
|
||||
- 如果不可用，执行 `references/fallbacks.md#openspec-提案-降级`。
|
||||
- 如果没有结构化 PRD，按需按 `to-prd` 协议生成 `brief.md`；复杂需求、对外协作或用户明确要求时再生成 `prd.md`。
|
||||
- `micro` 模式默认不创建独立 PRD，除非用户要求或需求复杂度升级。
|
||||
- 用 grill 阶段的 decisions.md 记录增强 OpenSpec 产物：确保 design/specs/tasks 反映所有已确认的决策。
|
||||
- **显式 cross-artifact 对齐检查**——在 checkpoint 中输出对齐检查表：
|
||||
- `brief/prd` 中的目标、范围、非目标和验收预期 → `proposal` 是否覆盖。
|
||||
- `proposal` 中的范围、约束和关键承诺 → `design` 是否覆盖。
|
||||
- `design` 中影响实现的约束、接口影响和架构结论 → `specs` 或 `tasks` 是否覆盖。
|
||||
- `specs` 中的可观察行为 → `tasks` 是否覆盖为可执行切片。
|
||||
- 每项标记：已对齐 / 存在 gap。
|
||||
- 检查是否涉及接口影响：
|
||||
- 接口影响分级定义见 `references/operating-rules.md#接口影响分级`。
|
||||
- 是否改变字段、DTO、service 方法、API、事件、回调、数据库契约、命令契约或跨模块调用语义。
|
||||
- 接口内部判断逻辑是否改变调用方可观察行为。
|
||||
- 按 L1/L2/L3/L4 记录接口影响等级；不确定时标记为 `user-interview` 问题。
|
||||
- 如果存在 gap，在进入下一阶段前修复 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 如果发现不一致，优先修正 OpenSpec，而不是只修改 devflow 文档。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- `design.md`、`specs/`、`tasks.md` 存在且与 proposal 对齐。
|
||||
- `brief.md` 已覆盖背景、目标、范围和非目标；复杂需求存在独立 `prd.md` 或用户明确不需要 PRD。
|
||||
- cross-artifact 对齐检查表已生成（4 行，每行标记已对齐/存在 gap），没有未处理 gap。
|
||||
- 涉及接口变更时，已记录接口影响等级和产物要求；不确定项已标记。
|
||||
- 所有已知冲突已修正或等待用户决策。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 完整的 Draft OpenSpec：proposal.md + design.md + specs/ + tasks.md。
|
||||
- `brief.md`，以及按需创建的 `prd.md`。
|
||||
- cross-artifact 对齐检查表（写入 checkpoint 或 decisions.md）。
|
||||
- 必要的 OpenSpec 修正。
|
||||
|
||||
## audit — 架构审计
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：specify 已退出，完整 OpenSpec 产物已存在。
|
||||
|
||||
**显式子 skill**：`zoom-out`。进入本阶段必须调用 `.agents/skills/zoom-out/SKILL.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 画出输入 → 处理 → 输出的模块链路。
|
||||
- 识别跨模块依赖、数据所有权、生命周期和耦合风险。
|
||||
- 检查是否与既有架构、ADR、OpenSpec design 冲突。
|
||||
- 用不超过五句话写出架构风险评估。
|
||||
- 如果审计结果影响实现，必须回写 OpenSpec design/tasks；只写入 devflow design 不够。
|
||||
- 审计结论写入 `decisions.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- 架构风险已被接受，或流程返回 grill/specify 修正 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- OpenSpec design/tasks 已反映会影响实现的架构审计结论。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 架构审计记录，写入 `decisions.md`；复杂架构审计可拆出 `design.md`。
|
||||
- 必要的 OpenSpec design/tasks 修正。
|
||||
|
||||
**Human checkpoint**：
|
||||
- 用不超过五句话向用户说明架构风险、OpenSpec 修正点和实现计划。
|
||||
- 询问是否进入 commit。
|
||||
|
||||
## commit — Commit OpenSpec
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：
|
||||
- grill 已解决术语、边界、验收三个维度的高价值问题。
|
||||
- 所有 `user-interview` 问题都已获得用户显式确认。
|
||||
- audit 已经完成，或快速模式下已记录跳过原因；快速模式定义见 `references/operating-rules.md#快速模式`。
|
||||
- Draft OpenSpec 已回写所有会影响实现的澄清、接口影响和架构审计结论。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 检查 proposal 是否说明为什么做、做什么、范围和非目标。
|
||||
- 检查 design 是否记录上下文约束、关键技术决策、架构风险和接口影响。
|
||||
- 检查 specs 是否表达外部可观察行为，并覆盖验收口径。
|
||||
- 检查 tasks 是否是可执行的纵向切片，而不是泛泛描述。
|
||||
- 复核 cross-artifact 对齐：`brief/prd → proposal → design → specs → tasks` 是否闭环，没有把字段、范围项、验收行为或实现切片丢在上游产物里。
|
||||
- 检查 `decisions.md` 中所有影响实现的发现，是否已回写到 proposal、design、specs 或 tasks。
|
||||
- 接口影响分级定义见 `references/operating-rules.md#接口影响分级`。
|
||||
- 检查接口影响是否已按 L1/L4 判级；L3/L4 是否有独立接口文档或等价独立章节。
|
||||
- 检查没有未汇报的 evidence-driven 结论，没有未确认的 user-interview 问题，没有 devflow/OpenSpec 冲突。
|
||||
- 如果检查失败，返回 propose、grill、specify 或 audit 修正 Draft OpenSpec。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- Draft OpenSpec 已达到可执行状态，并记录为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
- apply 所需的 proposal、design、specs 和 tasks 均存在且一致；commit checkpoint 必须验证文件实际存在于磁盘，如果任一文件不存在，commit 失败，返回 specify 补写。
|
||||
- 所有 preflight 风险已消除或明确记录为已接受。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- Committed OpenSpec 状态说明。
|
||||
- preflight 检查结果，写入 `decisions.md` 或 `acceptance.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**Human checkpoint**：
|
||||
- 用不超过五句话说明 Committed OpenSpec 的范围、接口影响、剩余风险和执行计划。
|
||||
- 询问是否进入 apply；除非用户在启动时明确要求"全自动执行"，必须等待用户明确说出进入 apply、开始实现、执行修改或等价授权。
|
||||
- 不得把 grill 的单个决策确认当作本 checkpoint 的授权。
|
||||
|
||||
## apply — OpenSpec 执行
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：
|
||||
- `openspec/changes/{slug}/` 中 proposal/design/specs/tasks 已通过 commit，成为 Committed OpenSpec。
|
||||
- commit 后已获得用户明确的 apply 授权，除非用户在启动时要求"全自动执行"。
|
||||
- devflow 与 OpenSpec 没有未解决冲突。
|
||||
- 没有未解决的 user-interview 问题、未判级接口影响、未汇报 evidence-driven 结论或未接受架构风险。
|
||||
|
||||
**显式子 skill**：`openspec-apply-change`；遇到 bug/不确定行为时显式调用 `diagnose`；需要测试驱动时显式调用 `tdd`。进入本阶段必须调用指定子 skill，不得静默跳过。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 优先调用 `openspec-apply-change`。
|
||||
- 执行依据是 OpenSpec specs/tasks；devflow 只能作为上下文参考。
|
||||
- 按 OpenSpec tasks 的纵向切片实现。
|
||||
- 进入实现前先汇报本阶段的 capability 来源、当前 task 进度和本轮要推进的切片；否则 apply 不算真正开始。
|
||||
- 当用户质疑、用户要求修改、代码检查、测试失败或运行行为与 OpenSpec 冲突时，做三类判断：
|
||||
- OpenSpec 不准（规格遗漏、边界未覆盖、验收口径缺失）→ 暂停 apply，修正 OpenSpec 后重新提交。
|
||||
- 代码偏离（实现没按 OpenSpec 做）→ 修正代码，不改 OpenSpec。
|
||||
- 不确定根因、涉及设计方向、用户改变目标或范围 → 暂停并等待用户确认。
|
||||
- 判断结果、证据、用户确认和 OpenSpec 回写状态必须记录到 `decisions.md`。
|
||||
- 当用户要求、行为复杂或回归风险高时使用 TDD。
|
||||
- 当测试失败、行为意外或原因不确定时使用 diagnose。
|
||||
- 如果 diagnose 发现根因是 OpenSpec 不准确，先修正 OpenSpec，再继续 apply。
|
||||
- 修改文件前遵守仓库指令，例如 `AGENTS.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- OpenSpec tasks 已完成，或剩余 tasks 已明确记录。
|
||||
- 所有实现期冲突已分类并处理；没有未确认的规格遗漏、设计冲突或用户变更。
|
||||
- 已运行验证，或记录了未验证原因。
|
||||
- 已列出已知限制。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 代码变更、必要测试和实现说明。
|
||||
- 更新后的 OpenSpec task 状态。
|
||||
- 冲突记录写入 `decisions.md`。
|
||||
|
||||
## archive — 回填 + 归档
|
||||
|
||||
**进入条件**：实现或规划工作已经达到可交接状态。
|
||||
|
||||
**显式子 skill**：`openspec-archive-change` 在用户确认 archive 后调用；archive 回填由 `sm-flow` 执行。必须调用子 skill，不得静默跳过。
|
||||
|
||||
**动作**：
|
||||
- 遵循 `references/archive-rules.md`。
|
||||
- 从 `decisions.md`（过程日志）+ OpenSpec 产物提炼完整 devflow 档案：
|
||||
- `brief.md`：从 proposal.md 提取背景、目标、范围、非目标。
|
||||
- `evidence.md`：从 decisions.md 中的 evidence-driven 记录提取。
|
||||
- `decisions.md`：保持为最终版，整理格式。
|
||||
- `acceptance.md`：从实现结果和验证结果提取。
|
||||
- 只在复杂场景按需拆出 PRD/research/design/tasks/alignment。
|
||||
- 写入或更新验收记录，并区分静态验证、脚本验证、浏览器/人工验证、未验证。
|
||||
- 如果本次流程产生可复用经验，写入 compound knowledge。
|
||||
- 更新 `devflow/index.md`，记录日期、slug、领域、关键词、关联 OpenSpec 和状态。
|
||||
- 询问用户是否要 archive OpenSpec change；不要默认执行归档。
|
||||
|
||||
**退出条件**：
|
||||
- `devflow/projects/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}/` 包含 brief.md、evidence.md、decisions.md、acceptance.md；archive checkpoint 必须列出所有已创建的文件路径，验证文件实际存在于磁盘。
|
||||
- `devflow/index.md` 已包含或更新本项目条目。
|
||||
- 用户已被询问是否 archive OpenSpec change。
|
||||
|
||||
**输出**：
|
||||
- 完整 devflow 档案。
|
||||
- 归档交接清单：创建或更新了哪些文件、验证分类、剩余风险、是否 archive。
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
|
||||
# 模板
|
||||
|
||||
这些是最小模板。只有在能提升未来可读性时，才增加额外章节。保留 PRD、ADR、OpenSpec、slug 等行业术语，其余说明尽量使用中文。
|
||||
|
||||
## Brief 模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} Brief
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
- 用户目标：{goal}
|
||||
- 当前问题：{problem}
|
||||
- 关联 OpenSpec：`openspec/changes/{slug}/`
|
||||
- devflow 分档：micro | standard | complex
|
||||
|
||||
## 范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 本次要做：{in scope}
|
||||
- 本次不做：{out of scope}
|
||||
- 影响区域：{modules/files if known}
|
||||
|
||||
## OpenSpec 对齐
|
||||
|
||||
- proposal 覆盖状态：已覆盖 / 待修正 / 不适用
|
||||
- specs 覆盖状态：已覆盖 / 待修正 / 不适用
|
||||
- tasks 覆盖状态：已覆盖 / 待修正 / 不适用
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence 模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
## 证据
|
||||
|
||||
| 来源 | 证据 | 结论 | 是否已汇报 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| {file/doc/test/ADR} | {evidence summary} | {conclusion} | 是 / 否 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven 结论
|
||||
|
||||
- 结论：{conclusion}
|
||||
- 证据：{evidence}
|
||||
- 风险：{risk if any}
|
||||
- 用户确认：需要 / 不需要 / 已确认
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions 模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Question Pool
|
||||
|
||||
| # | 维度 | 问题 | 模式 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Q1 | 术语 | {question} | evidence-driven / user-interview | 已解决 / 未解决 |
|
||||
| Q2 | 边界 | {question} | evidence-driven / user-interview | 已解决 / 未解决 |
|
||||
| Q3 | 验收 | {question} | evidence-driven / user-interview | 已解决 / 未解决 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence-driven
|
||||
|
||||
| 结论 | 证据来源 | 是否已汇报用户 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| {conclusion} | {file/doc/test/ADR} | 已汇报 / 待汇报 |
|
||||
|
||||
## User-interview
|
||||
|
||||
| 问题原文 | 用户原话 | 确认状态 | OpenSpec 回写 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| {question} | {user's exact words} | 已确认 / 未确认 | 已回写 / 不影响 / 待回写 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 关键取舍
|
||||
|
||||
- 决策：{decision}
|
||||
- 原因：{why}
|
||||
- 影响：{impact}
|
||||
- 风险接受：{accepted by whom/when}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 接口影响记录模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 接口影响记录
|
||||
|
||||
## 分级
|
||||
|
||||
- 级别：L1 内部实现 / L2 内部接口 / L3 协作接口 / L4 破坏性接口
|
||||
- 判级原因：{why this level}
|
||||
- 是否需要独立接口文档：是 / 否
|
||||
|
||||
## 变更对象
|
||||
|
||||
- 接口/字段/DTO/事件/回调/数据库契约：
|
||||
- 判断逻辑变化：
|
||||
- 可观察行为变化：返回数据 / 状态 / 错误码 / 权限结果 / 过滤排序 / 幂等性 / 时序 / 副作用 / 无
|
||||
|
||||
## 影响范围
|
||||
|
||||
- 调用方/消费者：
|
||||
- 是否跨模块/跨服务/跨团队：
|
||||
- 旧调用方是否需要改动：
|
||||
|
||||
## 兼容与迁移
|
||||
|
||||
- 是否向后兼容：
|
||||
- 迁移/灰度/回滚要求：
|
||||
- 风险接受：
|
||||
|
||||
## 验收方式
|
||||
|
||||
- 如何证明新行为正确：
|
||||
- 如何证明旧行为未破坏：
|
||||
- 需要用户确认的问题：
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现期冲突记录模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 实现期冲突记录
|
||||
|
||||
## 冲突摘要
|
||||
|
||||
- 触发来源：用户质疑 / 用户变更 / 代码发现 / 测试失败 / 运行行为
|
||||
- 冲突对象：proposal / design / specs / tasks / ADR / 代码行为
|
||||
- 分类：实现偏差 / 规格遗漏 / 设计冲突 / 用户变更
|
||||
|
||||
## 证据
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec 依据：
|
||||
- 代码或测试证据：
|
||||
- 用户反馈：
|
||||
|
||||
## 处理
|
||||
|
||||
- 决策：
|
||||
- 是否需要用户确认：是 / 否
|
||||
- OpenSpec 回写：不需要 / 已回写 / 待回写
|
||||
- 代码处理：
|
||||
- 验证方式：
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## PRD 模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} PRD
|
||||
|
||||
## 问题陈述
|
||||
|
||||
用用户视角描述问题。
|
||||
|
||||
## 解决方案
|
||||
|
||||
用用户视角描述预期解决方案。
|
||||
|
||||
## 用户故事
|
||||
|
||||
1. 作为{角色}，我希望{能力}，以便{收益}。
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现决策
|
||||
|
||||
- 决策：{decision}
|
||||
- 原因：{why}
|
||||
- 影响：{affected modules or behavior}
|
||||
|
||||
## 测试决策
|
||||
|
||||
- 好测试应该通过{public interface}验证{observable behavior}。
|
||||
- 必须覆盖：{critical paths}
|
||||
- 不测试：{explicit exclusions}
|
||||
|
||||
## 非目标
|
||||
|
||||
- {excluded behavior}
|
||||
|
||||
## 补充说明
|
||||
|
||||
- {open question or useful context}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 词汇表模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# 上下文词汇表
|
||||
|
||||
## 术语
|
||||
|
||||
### {术语}
|
||||
|
||||
- 定义：{precise definition}
|
||||
- 使用场景：{feature/module/context}
|
||||
- 备注：{ambiguities, synonyms, or rejected meanings}
|
||||
|
||||
## 业务规则
|
||||
|
||||
- {rule}: {meaning and source}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## ADR 模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# ADR-{编号}: {决策标题}
|
||||
|
||||
**状态**：提议中 | 已接受 | 已废弃
|
||||
**日期**：YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
是什么情况迫使我们做这个决策？
|
||||
|
||||
## 决策
|
||||
|
||||
我们选择了什么？
|
||||
|
||||
## 替代方案
|
||||
|
||||
| 方案 | 拒绝原因 |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| {option} | {reason} |
|
||||
|
||||
## 后果
|
||||
|
||||
### 正面
|
||||
|
||||
- {benefit}
|
||||
|
||||
### 负面
|
||||
|
||||
- {cost or risk}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 技术调研模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 技术调研
|
||||
|
||||
## 摘要
|
||||
|
||||
- 变更原因：{reason}
|
||||
- 变更范围：{scope}
|
||||
- 主要技术方案：{approach}
|
||||
|
||||
## 源产物
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenSpec change: `openspec/changes/{slug}/`
|
||||
- 关联 PRD: `prd.md` 或 `brief.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## 关键发现
|
||||
|
||||
- {finding}
|
||||
|
||||
## 假设
|
||||
|
||||
- {assumption and validation status}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 设计模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 设计
|
||||
|
||||
## 架构摘要
|
||||
|
||||
描述输入 → 处理 → 输出。
|
||||
|
||||
## 关键决策
|
||||
|
||||
- {decision}: {reason}
|
||||
|
||||
## 模块地图
|
||||
|
||||
| 模块 | 职责 | 备注 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| {module} | {responsibility} | {notes} |
|
||||
|
||||
## 架构审计
|
||||
|
||||
- 风险：{risk}
|
||||
- 缓解：{mitigation}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 任务模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 任务
|
||||
|
||||
## 需求追踪
|
||||
|
||||
| 需求 | 状态 | 备注 |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| {requirement} | 已完成 / 待处理 / 部分完成 | {notes} |
|
||||
|
||||
## 实现任务
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] {task}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 验收模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题} 验收
|
||||
|
||||
## 结果
|
||||
|
||||
已接受 / 部分接受 / 未接受。
|
||||
|
||||
## 验证
|
||||
|
||||
### 静态验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 命令/检查：`{command or check}`
|
||||
- 结果：{passed/failed/not run}
|
||||
- 备注：{important output or reason not run}
|
||||
|
||||
### 脚本验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 命令：`{command}`
|
||||
- 结果：{passed/failed/not run}
|
||||
- 备注：{important output or reason not run}
|
||||
|
||||
### 浏览器/人工验证
|
||||
|
||||
- 步骤：{manual steps}
|
||||
- 结果：{passed/failed/not run}
|
||||
- 备注：{observations or reason not run}
|
||||
|
||||
## 已完成范围
|
||||
|
||||
- {completed behavior}
|
||||
|
||||
## 已知限制
|
||||
|
||||
- {limitation}
|
||||
|
||||
## Bug 修复和诊断
|
||||
|
||||
- {bug}: {diagnosis summary and regression coverage}
|
||||
|
||||
## 交接
|
||||
|
||||
- 下一步：{archive, deploy, review, or follow-up}
|
||||
- OpenSpec 归档确认：{已询问/用户确认归档/用户暂不归档/不适用}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Artifact 对齐检查表模板
|
||||
|
||||
specify 阶段的 checkpoint 必须包含此检查表。每项标记"已对齐"或"存在 gap"。
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Cross-Artifact 对齐检查
|
||||
|
||||
| 上游 → 下游 | 检查内容 | 状态 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| brief/prd → proposal | 目标、范围、非目标、验收预期是否进入 proposal | 已对齐 / 存在 gap |
|
||||
| proposal → design | 范围、约束、关键承诺是否进入 design | 已对齐 / 存在 gap |
|
||||
| design → specs/tasks | 影响实现的约束、接口影响、架构结论是否进入 specs 或 tasks | 已对齐 / 存在 gap |
|
||||
| specs → tasks | 可观察行为是否被 tasks 覆盖为可执行切片 | 已对齐 / 存在 gap |
|
||||
|
||||
### Gap 详情（如有）
|
||||
|
||||
- gap 1：{描述哪个字段/约束/行为/切片只停留在上游，未进入下游}
|
||||
- 修复：{如何修正 OpenSpec}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 复合知识模板
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# {标题}
|
||||
|
||||
**类型**：learning | trick | decision | explore
|
||||
**日期**：YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||
|
||||
## 背景
|
||||
|
||||
这条经验来自哪里？
|
||||
|
||||
## 经验
|
||||
|
||||
未来代理应该复用什么经验？
|
||||
|
||||
## 适用性
|
||||
|
||||
什么时候适用？什么时候不适用？
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user