name: spec-driven
version: 1
description: Default OpenSpec workflow - proposal → specs → design → tasks
artifacts:
  - id: proposal
    generates: proposal.md
    description: Initial proposal document outlining the change
    template: proposal.md
    instruction: |
      Create the proposal document that establishes WHY this change is needed.

      Sections:
      - **Why**: 1-2 sentences on the problem or opportunity. What problem does this solve? Why now?
      - **What Changes**: Bullet list of changes. Be specific about new capabilities, modifications, or removals. Mark breaking changes with **BREAKING**.
      - **Capabilities**: Identify which specs will be created or modified:
        - **New Capabilities**: List capabilities being introduced. Each becomes a new `specs/<capability-path>/spec.md`. Use kebab-case for path segments you introduce (e.g., `user-auth` or `identity/user-auth`) and follow the project's existing spec organization.
        - **Modified Capabilities**: List existing capabilities whose REQUIREMENTS are changing. Only include if spec-level behavior changes (not just implementation details). Each needs a delta spec file. Use the exact existing path under `openspec/specs/`. Leave empty if no requirement changes.
      - **Impact**: Affected code, APIs, dependencies, or systems.

      IMPORTANT: The Capabilities section is critical. It creates the contract between
      proposal and specs phases. Research existing specs before filling this in.
      Each capability listed here will need a corresponding spec file.

      Every change must either declare at least one capability (new or
      modified) or explicitly opt out of specs: `openspec validate` rejects a
      change with zero deltas unless the change's `.openspec.yaml` sets
      `skip_specs: true`. Use `skip_specs: true` only when no spec-level
      behavior changes (pure refactor, tooling, docs) - specs describe
      behavior, so if behavior does not change, no spec should change either.
      Do not invent a requirement just to satisfy validation.

      Keep it concise (1-2 pages). Focus on the "why" not the "how" -
      implementation details belong in design.md.

      This is the foundation - specs, design, and tasks all build on this.
    requires: []

  - id: specs
    generates: "specs/**/*.md"
    description: Detailed specifications for the change
    template: spec.md
    instruction: |
      Create specification files that define WHAT the system should do.

      A spec is a behavior contract, not an implementation plan.

      Good spec content:
      - Observable behavior users or downstream systems rely on
      - Inputs, outputs, and error conditions
      - External constraints (security, privacy, reliability, compatibility)
      - Scenarios that can be tested or explicitly validated

      Avoid in specs:
      - Internal class/function names
      - Library or framework choices
      - Step-by-step implementation details
      - Detailed execution plans (those belong in design.md or tasks.md)

      Quick test: if the implementation can change without changing externally
      visible behavior, it likely does not belong in the spec.

      Create one spec file per capability listed in the proposal's Capabilities section.
      `<capability-path>` is the spec directory relative to `specs/` (for example,
      `user-auth` or `identity/user-auth`). Preserve the full path:
      - New capabilities: use the exact path from the proposal at `specs/<capability-path>/spec.md`. Any path segment newly introduced in the proposal must be kebab-case. Follow the project's existing organization; do not add a new domain level when the project uses a flat layout.
      - Modified capabilities: use the exact existing path from `openspec/specs/<capability-path>/` when creating the delta at `specs/<capability-path>/spec.md`. Do not move or rename the capability.

      There must be at least one spec file unless the change's `.openspec.yaml`
      sets `skip_specs: true` (no spec-level behavior change) - `openspec validate`
      rejects a zero-delta change without that marker. If the proposal lists no
      capabilities and `skip_specs` is not set, revisit the proposal first.

      Delta operations (use ## headers):
      - **ADDED Requirements**: New capabilities
      - **MODIFIED Requirements**: Changed behavior - MUST include full updated content
      - **REMOVED Requirements**: Deprecated features - MUST include **Reason** and **Migration**
      - **RENAMED Requirements**: Name changes only - use FROM:/TO: format

      Format requirements:
      - Each requirement: `### Requirement: <name>` followed by description
      - Use SHALL/MUST for normative requirements (avoid should/may)
      - Each scenario: `#### Scenario: <name>` with WHEN/THEN format
      - **CRITICAL**: Scenarios MUST use exactly 4 hashtags (`####`). Using 3 hashtags or bullets will fail silently.
      - Every requirement MUST have at least one scenario.

      New capabilities only: start the delta spec with a `## Purpose` section -
      one or two sentences (50+ characters, or `openspec validate --strict`
      reports it as too brief) describing what the capability is for. Archive
      copies it into the main spec it creates; without it the new main spec is
      left with a `TBD ... Update Purpose after archive` placeholder to fill in
      by hand. Do NOT add `## Purpose` to a delta for an existing capability -
      that spec already has one and the delta's is ignored. To change an
      existing capability's Purpose - including a leftover `TBD` placeholder -
      edit `openspec/specs/<capability-path>/spec.md` directly.

      MODIFIED requirements workflow:
      1. Locate the existing requirement in openspec/specs/<capability-path>/spec.md
      2. Copy the ENTIRE requirement block (from `### Requirement:` through all scenarios)
      3. Paste under `## MODIFIED Requirements` and edit to reflect new behavior
      4. Ensure header text matches exactly (whitespace-insensitive)

      Common pitfall: Using MODIFIED with partial content loses detail at archive time.
      If adding new concerns without changing existing behavior, use ADDED instead.

      Example (a new capability, so it opens with `## Purpose`):
      ```
      ## Purpose

      Lets users take their data out of the product in a portable format.

      ## ADDED Requirements

      ### Requirement: User can export data
      The system SHALL allow users to export their data in CSV format.

      #### Scenario: Successful export
      - **WHEN** user clicks "Export" button
      - **THEN** system downloads a CSV file with all user data

      ## REMOVED Requirements

      ### Requirement: Legacy export
      **Reason**: Replaced by new export system
      **Migration**: Use new export endpoint at /api/v2/export
      ```

      Specs should be testable - each scenario is a potential test case.
    requires:
      - proposal

  - id: design
    generates: design.md
    description: Technical design document with implementation details
    template: design.md
    instruction: |
      Create the design document that explains HOW to implement the change.

      When to include design.md (create only if any apply):
      - Cross-cutting change (multiple services/modules) or new architectural pattern
      - New external dependency or significant data model changes
      - Security, performance, or migration complexity
      - Ambiguity that benefits from technical decisions before coding

      Sections:
      - **Context**: Only the current state and constraints needed to explain the approach. Reference the proposal for motivation instead of restating it (e.g., "See proposal.md - Why").
      - **Goals / Non-Goals**: What this design achieves and explicitly excludes. Don't restate the proposal's scope - add only design-level boundaries.
      - **Decisions**: Key technical choices with rationale (why X over Y?). Include alternatives considered for each decision.
      - **Risks / Trade-offs**: Known limitations, things that could go wrong. Format: [Risk] → Mitigation
      - **Migration Plan**: Steps to deploy, rollback strategy (if applicable)
      - **Open Questions**: Unknowns that can safely be answered later without
        changing the specs, the approach, or the task breakdown. Omit if none.

      Open questions are for genuinely deferrable unknowns, not decisions you
      skipped. If a question would change the specs, the chosen approach, or
      the task breakdown, resolve it now - ask the user instead of guessing.

      Focus on architecture and approach, not line-by-line implementation.
      The proposal covers why and what; design covers how. Reference the
      proposal for motivation and, once written, the specs for requirements -
      if a section would only restate them, point to them instead.

      Good design docs explain the "why" behind technical decisions.
    requires:
      - proposal

  - id: tasks
    generates: tasks.md
    description: Implementation checklist with trackable tasks
    template: tasks.md
    instruction: |
      Create the task list that breaks down the implementation work.

      Before writing tasks, check design.md for Open Questions. If any of them
      would change what gets built, resolve them with the user first - do not
      bake an unstated assumption into the task list.

      **IMPORTANT: Follow the template below exactly.** The apply phase parses
      checkbox format to track progress. Tasks not using `- [ ]` won't be tracked.

      Guidelines:
      - Group related tasks under ## numbered headings
      - Each task MUST be a checkbox: `- [ ] X.Y Task description`
      - Tasks should be small enough to complete in one session
      - Order tasks by dependency (what must be done first?)

      Example:
      ```
      ## 1. Setup

      - [ ] 1.1 Create new module structure
      - [ ] 1.2 Add dependencies to package.json

      ## 2. Core Implementation

      - [ ] 2.1 Implement data export function
      - [ ] 2.2 Add CSV formatting utilities
      ```

      Reference specs for what needs to be built, design for how to build it.
      Each task should be verifiable - you know when it's done.
    requires:
      - specs
      - design

apply:
  requires: [tasks]
  tracks: tasks.md
  instruction: |
    Read context files, work through pending tasks, mark complete as you go.
    Pause if you hit blockers or need clarification.
