Files
9facd8307a feat(speckit): integrate github/spec-kit for spec-driven development (#38)
Installs spec-kit slash commands (/speckit-specify, /speckit-plan,
/speckit-tasks, /speckit-implement, /speckit-analyze, /speckit-clarify,
/speckit-checklist, /speckit-constitution, /speckit-taskstoissues) into
Claude Code via .claude/skills/speckit-*/.

Note: specify-cli v1.0.0 init fails on Windows because spec-kit v0.5+
releases no longer attach binary zip assets to GitHub releases (confirmed
by inspecting all 30 releases via API; only v0.4.4 and earlier have
assets). Templates were sourced directly from the github/spec-kit@v0.7.3
repo tree and SKILL.md files were built per the claude integration spec
in src/specify_cli/integrations/claude/__init__.py (user-invocable:true,
disable-model-invocation:false, argument-hint injection).

Enables the "specs in git" workflow for cross-device work state:
- New feature → /speckit-specify → specs/NNN/spec.md
- Design → /speckit-plan → specs/NNN/plan.md
- Work → /speckit-tasks → specs/NNN/tasks.md (handoff artifact)
- Implement → /speckit-implement → code

Preserves existing CLAUDE.md (@AGENTS.md bridges intact) and existing
memory policies in AGENTS.md. memory/constitution.md is annotated at
the top to reference AGENTS.md for project-specific constraints.

No change to server.mjs, models.json, package.json, or any other code.

Co-authored-by: Tao Deng <dtzp555@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-21 20:10:52 +10:00

129 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown

# Feature Specification: [FEATURE NAME]
**Feature Branch**: `[###-feature-name]`
**Created**: [DATE]
**Status**: Draft
**Input**: User description: "$ARGUMENTS"
## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*
<!--
IMPORTANT: User stories should be PRIORITIZED as user journeys ordered by importance.
Each user story/journey must be INDEPENDENTLY TESTABLE - meaning if you implement just ONE of them,
you should still have a viable MVP (Minimum Viable Product) that delivers value.
Assign priorities (P1, P2, P3, etc.) to each story, where P1 is the most critical.
Think of each story as a standalone slice of functionality that can be:
- Developed independently
- Tested independently
- Deployed independently
- Demonstrated to users independently
-->
### User Story 1 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P1)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
**Why this priority**: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
**Independent Test**: [Describe how this can be tested independently - e.g., "Can be fully tested by [specific action] and delivers [specific value]"]
**Acceptance Scenarios**:
1. **Given** [initial state], **When** [action], **Then** [expected outcome]
2. **Given** [initial state], **When** [action], **Then** [expected outcome]
---
### User Story 2 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P2)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
**Why this priority**: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
**Independent Test**: [Describe how this can be tested independently]
**Acceptance Scenarios**:
1. **Given** [initial state], **When** [action], **Then** [expected outcome]
---
### User Story 3 - [Brief Title] (Priority: P3)
[Describe this user journey in plain language]
**Why this priority**: [Explain the value and why it has this priority level]
**Independent Test**: [Describe how this can be tested independently]
**Acceptance Scenarios**:
1. **Given** [initial state], **When** [action], **Then** [expected outcome]
---
[Add more user stories as needed, each with an assigned priority]
### Edge Cases
<!--
ACTION REQUIRED: The content in this section represents placeholders.
Fill them out with the right edge cases.
-->
- What happens when [boundary condition]?
- How does system handle [error scenario]?
## Requirements *(mandatory)*
<!--
ACTION REQUIRED: The content in this section represents placeholders.
Fill them out with the right functional requirements.
-->
### Functional Requirements
- **FR-001**: System MUST [specific capability, e.g., "allow users to create accounts"]
- **FR-002**: System MUST [specific capability, e.g., "validate email addresses"]
- **FR-003**: Users MUST be able to [key interaction, e.g., "reset their password"]
- **FR-004**: System MUST [data requirement, e.g., "persist user preferences"]
- **FR-005**: System MUST [behavior, e.g., "log all security events"]
*Example of marking unclear requirements:*
- **FR-006**: System MUST authenticate users via [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: auth method not specified - email/password, SSO, OAuth?]
- **FR-007**: System MUST retain user data for [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: retention period not specified]
### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*
- **[Entity 1]**: [What it represents, key attributes without implementation]
- **[Entity 2]**: [What it represents, relationships to other entities]
## Success Criteria *(mandatory)*
<!--
ACTION REQUIRED: Define measurable success criteria.
These must be technology-agnostic and measurable.
-->
### Measurable Outcomes
- **SC-001**: [Measurable metric, e.g., "Users can complete account creation in under 2 minutes"]
- **SC-002**: [Measurable metric, e.g., "System handles 1000 concurrent users without degradation"]
- **SC-003**: [User satisfaction metric, e.g., "90% of users successfully complete primary task on first attempt"]
- **SC-004**: [Business metric, e.g., "Reduce support tickets related to [X] by 50%"]
## Assumptions
<!--
ACTION REQUIRED: The content in this section represents placeholders.
Fill them out with the right assumptions based on reasonable defaults
chosen when the feature description did not specify certain details.
-->
- [Assumption about target users, e.g., "Users have stable internet connectivity"]
- [Assumption about scope boundaries, e.g., "Mobile support is out of scope for v1"]
- [Assumption about data/environment, e.g., "Existing authentication system will be reused"]
- [Dependency on existing system/service, e.g., "Requires access to the existing user profile API"]