| name | moai-foundation-specs |
| version | 4.0.0 |
| created | Tue Nov 11 2025 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) |
| updated | Wed Nov 12 2025 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) |
| status | stable |
| description | SPEC document management - lifecycle, versioning, approval workflows, 50+ references, SPEC-first TDD integration |
| keywords | spec, specification, requirements, lifecycle, versioning, approval, tracking, tdd |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Bash, Grep, Glob |
SPEC Foundation Skill - Expert v4.0
Skill Overview
SPEC (Specification) is the formal requirements document that drives SPEC-first, TDD development. This Skill provides comprehensive guidance on SPEC lifecycle management, version control, approval workflows, traceability, and integration with MoAI-ADK development pipeline.
Quick Facts
- 4 SPEC Lifecycle States: Draft, Active, Deprecated, Archived
- Version Management: Semantic versioning (major.minor.patch)
- Approval Workflow: Author → Review → Approval → Deployment
- Integration: Core of
/alfred:1-planworkflow in MoAI-ADK
When to Use This Skill
- Creating formal specifications before development
- Managing specification versions and evolution
- Setting up approval workflows for requirements
- Tracing requirements through code and tests
- Organizing multiple specifications in complex projects
Level 1: Foundation - SPEC Lifecycle
1. Draft State - Specification Creation
Purpose: Initial specification authoring and refinement
Activities:
1. Specification Author creates SPEC-XXX/spec.md
2. Define requirements using EARS patterns
3. Gather stakeholder input
4. Refine until ready for review
5. Create acceptance criteria
6. Document known risks and constraints
Typical Duration: 2-5 days (simple features) to 2-4 weeks (complex systems)
Key Artifacts:
spec.md- Main specification documentacceptance-criteria.md- Acceptance tests (if separate)technical-notes.md- Implementation guidance (optional)
Deliverables for Review:
- ✅ Clear problem statement
- ✅ EARS-format requirements (functional & non-functional)
- ✅ Acceptance criteria for all requirements
- ✅ Architecture/design notes
- ✅ Risk assessment
- ✅ Dependencies identified
Example Draft Structure:
# SPEC-045: User Authentication System
## Problem Statement
Current system lacks multi-factor authentication. Need MFA for security compliance.
## Requirements
REQ-001 (Event-Driven): When login_attempted the system eventually satisfies
mfa_challenge_presented
REQ-002 (Ubiquitous): The system shall always satisfy mfa_enabled_for_admin = true
REQ-003 (Optional): When mfa_timeout_exceeded the system immediately satisfies
session_terminated
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] MFA works with authenticator apps (Google, Microsoft)
- [ ] Fallback SMS when app unavailable
- [ ] Session timeout after 10 minutes inactivity
- [ ] Audit log all MFA events
## Technical Notes
- Use TOTP (RFC 6238) for time-based codes
- Backup codes for emergency access
- Consider integration with existing identity system
## Risks
- User adoption of MFA might be low
- SMS delivery reliability (use backup)
Draft Anti-Patterns - Avoid:
- ❌ Vague requirements ("system shall be secure")
- ❌ Mixing implementation details with requirements
- ❌ Incomplete acceptance criteria
- ❌ No identified risks or constraints
- ❌ Unsourceable or unmeasurable requirements
2. Review State - Formal Evaluation
Purpose: Peer review and stakeholder feedback
Review Participants:
- Author: Specification creator
- Technical Lead: Architecture and feasibility review
- QA Lead: Test coverage and acceptance criteria review
- Product Owner: Business requirement alignment
- Domain Experts: Subject matter expert review (if applicable)
Review Checklist:
[ ] Requirements are clear and unambiguous
[ ] All requirements are EARS-format
[ ] Acceptance criteria are measurable
[ ] No conflicting requirements
[ ] Architecture feasible
[ ] Risk assessment complete
[ ] Traceability clear
[ ] No external dependencies missing
[ ] Timeline realistic
[ ] Budget/resources adequate
Review Process:
- Initial Submission: Author marks SPEC ready for review
- Reviewer Comments: Team adds comments/questions
- Author Responses: Author clarifies or updates spec
- Revisions: 2-3 rounds typical for complex specs
- Consensus: Team agrees specification is complete
- Approval Gate: Technical lead + Product owner sign-off
Review Duration: 3-7 business days (parallel review)
Version Bumping Rules:
- Each revision during review: increment patch (0.1.0 → 0.1.1)
- Major revisions (scope change): increment minor (0.1.0 → 0.2.0)
3. Active State - Implementation Period
Purpose: Specification is approved and development proceeds
Activation Steps:
- Technical lead approves and signs SPEC
- Create feature branch:
feature/SPEC-XXX - Implement per SPEC requirements
- Tests validate against acceptance criteria
During Active Phase:
- ✅ Spec is reference for development
- ✅ Any change discussion references spec
- ✅ Code reviews verify against spec
- ✅ Tests trace to spec requirements
- ✅ Track deviations and change requests
Change Management:
If requirement change needed during development:
1. Assess impact on timeline/scope
2. Document change request
3. Get approval from technical lead + product owner
4. Update SPEC with new version
5. Notify implementation team
6. Update code and tests accordingly
Typical Duration: Development time + testing (1-8 weeks)
Version Bumping:
- Minor feature additions: increment minor (1.0.0 → 1.1.0)
- Bug fixes to spec: increment patch (1.0.0 → 1.0.1)
- Scope changes: increment major (1.0.0 → 2.0.0)
Completion Criteria:
- ✅ All requirements implemented
- ✅ All acceptance criteria passed
- ✅ Code review approved
- ✅ Tests passing (≥85% coverage)
- ✅ Documentation updated
- ✅ Ready for deployment
4. Deprecated State - Phase-Out Period
Purpose: Feature is being replaced or removed
Triggering Events:
- New feature replaces old functionality
- System architecture change
- Technology upgrade required
- Business decision to sunset feature
Deprecation Process:
- Mark SPEC as DEPRECATED in metadata
- Create successor SPEC (if applicable)
- Document migration path for users
- Set end-of-life date (typically 6-12 months)
- Notify stakeholders of timeline
During Deprecation:
- ✅ Maintain feature (bug fixes)
- ✅ No new feature development
- ✅ Gradual user migration
- ✅ Support successor feature
- ✅ Plan removal
Deprecation Notice Format:
# SPEC-042: Old Authentication (DEPRECATED)
**Status**: DEPRECATED
**Successor**: SPEC-045 (New MFA Authentication)
**Migration Guide**: See migration-guide.md
**EOL Date**: 2025-12-31 (6 months from deprecation)
## Migration Timeline
- 2025-07: New system available, parallel operation
- 2025-09: Default switch to new system
- 2025-12: Old system shutdown
## Support
- Questions: Ask in #migration channel
- Migration assistance: migration-team@example.com
Version Marking:
- Mark SPEC with version tag:
v1.5.0 (DEPRECATED) - Update status in all references
- Create deprecation notice in documentation
5. Archived State - Historical Reference
Purpose: SPEC is no longer active, kept for historical record
Archival Process:
- Feature removed from production
- Mark SPEC as ARCHIVED
- Move to archive directory:
.moai/specs/archived/ - Maintain for audit/compliance purposes
- Tag with final version and EOL date
Archive Retention:
- Keep indefinitely for compliance requirements
- Compress old versions
- Index for historical search
Archive Access:
- Readable by all (reference)
- No modifications allowed
- Available for audit trails
Level 2: Advanced - Version Management
Semantic Versioning Strategy
Format: major.minor.patch
Versioning Rules:
Starting with: 1.0.0
PATCH (1.0.X):
- Bug fixes to requirements
- Minor clarifications
- No scope change
Example: 1.0.0 → 1.0.1
MINOR (1.X.0):
- New acceptance criteria
- Refinement during review
- Feature additions
Example: 1.0.0 → 1.1.0
MAJOR (X.0.0):
- Scope changes
- Architecture redesign
- Incompatible changes
Example: 1.0.0 → 2.0.0
Pre-release versions:
- 1.0.0-rc1 (release candidate)
- 1.0.0-beta (beta testing)
- 0.1.0 (draft versions before 1.0.0)
Version Metadata:
# In SPEC frontmatter
version: 1.2.3
status: stable
created: 2025-11-01
updated: 2025-11-12
approved_by: tech-lead-name
approval_date: 2025-11-05
deprecated: false
eol_date: null # null if active, 2025-12-31 if deprecated
Change Tracking
Every update logs:
- Who: Author/editor name
- What: Change description
- When: Date and time
- Why: Rationale for change
- Version: New version number
Change Log Format:
# Version History
## v1.2.3 (2025-11-12) - Clarifications
- Clarified requirement REQ-002 acceptance criteria
- Added risk assessment for database migration
- Updated timeline from 4 weeks to 6 weeks
- Author: john-smith | Tech Lead: sarah-jones
## v1.2.2 (2025-11-10) - Bug Fix
- Fixed requirement numbering consistency
- Author: john-smith
## v1.2.1 (2025-11-08) - Review Updates
- Addressed QA concerns about test coverage
- Added backup procedures to recovery plan
- Author: john-smith | Reviewer: qa-lead
Level 3: Practical Application
Complete SPEC Examples
Example 1: Simple Feature SPEC (SPEC-050)
---
name: User Profile Enhancement
spec_id: SPEC-050
version: 1.0.0
status: stable
created: 2025-11-01
approved_date: 2025-11-08
approved_by: tech-lead
---
# SPEC-050: User Profile Enhancement
## Problem Statement
Users cannot upload profile pictures. Current profile view shows placeholder only.
## Functional Requirements
REQ-001 (Event-Driven):
When user_uploads_profile_image the system eventually satisfies
image_stored_in_profile_and_cache_updated
Acceptance: Image appears immediately after upload
REQ-002 (Ubiquitous):
The system shall always satisfy profile_image_size <= 5MB
Acceptance: Upload fails with error if exceeds 5MB
REQ-003 (Unwanted):
The system shall never satisfy (invalid_image_format AND stored)
Acceptance: Only PNG, JPEG, WebP accepted
## Non-Functional Requirements
- Performance: Image upload completes within 3 seconds
- Security: Images scanned for malware
- Compliance: GDPR-compliant data storage
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] Upload works for PNG, JPEG, WebP
- [ ] File size limited to 5MB
- [ ] Image appears in profile immediately
- [ ] Old images automatically deleted
- [ ] Performance < 3 seconds on 4G
- [ ] Mobile and desktop tested
## Testing Strategy
- Unit tests: Image validation, storage
- Integration tests: Upload workflow
- E2E tests: User upload → profile view
- Manual: Test on various devices
## Technical Notes
- Use S3 for image storage
- CloudFront CDN for distribution
- ImgProxy for optimization
## Risks
- Malware in images (mitigate with scanning)
- Storage costs (monitor usage)
- CDN cache invalidation (use versioning)
## Dependencies
- S3 bucket provisioning
- ImgProxy service deployment
- Malware scanning service
## Timeline
- Development: 2 weeks
- Testing: 1 week
- Deployment: 1 day
Example 2: Complex System SPEC (SPEC-051)
---
name: Payment Processing Refactor
spec_id: SPEC-051
version: 2.1.0
status: stable
created: 2025-10-15
approved_date: 2025-11-01
approved_by: tech-lead, product-owner
---
# SPEC-051: Payment Processing Refactor
## Problem Statement
Current payment system doesn't support multiple payment providers. Need flexibility
to add Stripe, PayPal, Square without major refactoring.
## Architecture
### System Components
Payment Service (core abstraction) ├── Stripe Provider (implementation) ├── PayPal Provider (implementation) └── Square Provider (future)
## Functional Requirements
REQ-001-005: [5 event-driven payment flow requirements]
REQ-006-010: [5 ubiquitous invariants for payment safety]
REQ-011-015: [5 state-driven mode requirements]
## Non-Functional Requirements
- Throughput: ≥ 1000 transactions/sec
- Latency: P99 < 500ms
- Availability: 99.95% uptime
- Security: PCI-DSS Level 1 compliance
- Scalability: Auto-scale to 10k transactions/sec
## Integration Points
- Payment Gateway APIs (Stripe, PayPal)
- Accounting system (QuickBooks API)
- Fraud detection (Third-party service)
- Notification system (Email, SMS, in-app)
## Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] All payment methods work end-to-end
- [ ] Transactions persist through failures
- [ ] Receipts generated automatically
- [ ] Refunds processed within 2 hours
- [ ] All error cases handled gracefully
- [ ] Performance targets met
- [ ] Security audit passed
## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|-----------|
| API rate limits | Medium | High | Implement queue, caching |
| Data loss | Low | Critical | Transaction journaling |
| Fraud | Medium | High | Third-party fraud detection |
| Compliance violation | Low | Critical | Regular audits |
## Timeline & Resources
- Backend Development: 4 weeks (2 engineers)
- Frontend Integration: 2 weeks (1 engineer)
- QA Testing: 2 weeks (2 QA engineers)
- Deployment & monitoring: 1 week (devops)
- Total: 9 weeks, 6 people
## Success Metrics
- Zero payment failures
- Payment latency < 500ms (P99)
- User-reported issues < 0.1%
- All tests passing (≥90% coverage)
Best Practices
1. Specification Clarity
- ✅ Use EARS patterns for all requirements
- ✅ Define acceptance criteria before development
- ✅ Include rationale for non-obvious requirements
- ✅ Document constraints and assumptions
- ✅ Keep specifications concise but complete
2. Approval Process
- ✅ Define clear reviewers (technical, product, domain)
- ✅ Use structured review checklist
- ✅ Set review timeline (3-7 days)
- ✅ Document approval decision
- ✅ Require sign-off from decision makers
3. Version Management
- ✅ Use semantic versioning consistently
- ✅ Document every change with rationale
- ✅ Keep complete version history
- ✅ Mark breaking changes clearly
- ✅ Create migration guides for major versions
4. Traceability
- ✅ Link tests to requirements
- ✅ Link documentation to spec
- ✅ Create traceability matrix
- ✅ Verify no orphaned requirements
5. Organization
- ✅ Use consistent directory structure:
.moai/specs/SPEC-XXX/ - ✅ Keep related specs together
- ✅ Link dependent specs
- ✅ Archive deprecated specs
- ✅ Index active specs
SPEC Integration with MoAI-ADK
With /alfred:1-plan Command
/alfred:1-plan "user profile enhancement feature"
↓
Creates SPEC-XXX structure
├── spec.md (specification)
├── acceptance-criteria.md
├── technical-notes.md (optional)
└── CHANGELOG.md
↓
Author reviews and marks ready
↓
Tech lead approves
↓
Status: ACTIVE
With /alfred:2-run Command
/alfred:2-run SPEC-050
↓
Reads SPEC-050 specification
↓
TDD cycle:
RED: Tests from acceptance criteria
GREEN: Implementation
REFACTOR: Code quality
↓
↓
Tests link to requirements
With /alfred:3-sync Command
/alfred:3-sync auto SPEC-050
↓
Validates all acceptance criteria met
↓
Updates documentation
↓
Verifies test coverage
↓
Creates PR to develop
With moai-foundation-tags
- Documentation includes spec rationale
- Complete traceability: SPEC → Code → Tests → Docs
Organization Patterns
Small Project (1-3 specs)
.moai/specs/
├── SPEC-001/
│ ├── spec.md
│ └── acceptance-criteria.md
├── SPEC-002/
└── SPEC-003/
Medium Project (5-20 specs)
.moai/specs/
├── core/
│ ├── SPEC-001/ (auth)
│ └── SPEC-002/ (api)
├── features/
│ ├── SPEC-010/ (profile)
│ └── SPEC-011/ (payments)
├── infrastructure/
│ ├── SPEC-020/ (database)
│ └── SPEC-021/ (monitoring)
└── deprecated/
└── SPEC-000/ (old feature)
Large Project (50+ specs)
.moai/specs/
├── index.md (SPEC registry)
├── platform/
│ ├── auth/ (4 specs)
│ ├── api/ (3 specs)
│ ├── user/ (5 specs)
│ └── payments/ (3 specs)
├── features/
│ ├── analytics/ (3 specs)
│ ├── reporting/ (2 specs)
│ └── mobile/ (4 specs)
├── infrastructure/
│ ├── backend/ (5 specs)
│ ├── devops/ (4 specs)
│ └── security/ (3 specs)
├── deprecated/ (archived specs)
└── archive/ (historical reference)
Official References (50+ Links)
SPEC/SRS Standards
- https://standards.ieee.org/standard/830-1998.html — IEEE 830 (Requirements)
- https://standards.ieee.org/standard/29148-2018.html — ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148
- https://aqua-cloud.io/how-write-effective-software-requirements-specification/
- https://www.omg.org/spec/ReqIF/ — ReqIF standard
- https://www.iso.org/standard/71952.html — ISO/IEC 82045
Document Management Best Practices
- https://www.documind.chat/blog/document-management-best-practices
- https://thedigitalprojectmanager.com/project-management/document-management-best-practices/
- https://blog.opendomain.com/7-engineering-document-management-best-practices
- https://www.accruent.com/resources/knowledge-hub/what-is-an-engineering-document-management-system
- https://www.wrenchsp.com/best-practices-for-engineering-document-management/
Version Control & Versioning
- https://semver.org/ — Semantic Versioning
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
- https://www.conventionalcommits.org/ — Conventional Commits
- https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ — Git Flow
- https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows — Git Workflows
Tools & Platforms
- https://www.jamasoftware.com/ — Jama Software
- https://visuresolutions.com/ — Visure Solutions
- https://www.digital.ai/product/doors — Telelogic DOORS
- https://docxellent.com/ — Docxellent
- https://www.g2.com/categories/engineering-document-management — G2 Review
Software Engineering Standards
- https://cmmiinstitute.com/ — SEI CMMI
- https://www.computer.org/csdl/book/swebok — SWEBOK v3
- https://www.sei.cmu.edu/ — SEI Publications
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537660/ — Software Engineering Handbook
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-model — V-Model Development
Agile & Requirements
- https://www.agilealliance.org/ — Agile Alliance
- https://www.scrum.org/ — Scrum Framework
- https://www.scaledagileframework.com/ — SAFe Framework
- https://www.atlassian.com/agile/requirements-gathering — Requirements Gathering
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_backlog — Product Backlog
SPEC/Requirements Examples
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05087 — Requirements Engineering Survey
- https://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/ — Product Management
- https://www.svpg.com/ — Silicon Valley Product Group
- https://www.productschool.com/ — Product School
- https://www.reforge.com/ — Reforge Courses
Traceability
- https://www.alm-tools.org/ — ALM Tools
- https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/10/22/traceability/ — GitLab Traceability
- https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence — Confluence
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceability_matrix — Traceability Matrix
- https://www.jira.com/ — Jira Requirements
Testing & Acceptance Criteria
- https://cucumber.io/ — BDD/Gherkin
- https://www.behave.org/ — Python BDD
- https://testng.org/ — TestNG Framework
- https://junit.org/ — JUnit
- https://pytest.org/ — Pytest
Safety-Critical Specs
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B — DO-178B Avionics
- https://www.iso.org/standard/43464.html — ISO 26262 (Automotive)
- https://www.iec.ch/ — IEC Standards
- https://www.rtca.org/ — RTCA/EUROCAE
- https://www.sae.org/ — SAE Standards
Additional Resources
- https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/ — Model Context Protocol
- https://spec.modelcontextprotocol.io/ — MCP Lifecycle Specs
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_engineering — Requirements Engineering
- https://www.nist.gov/ — NIST Standards
- https://www.bsi-global.com/ — BSI Standards
Troubleshooting
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Vague requirements | Apply EARS patterns, add measurable criteria |
| Stuck in review | Set review deadline, escalate to tech lead |
| Scope creep | Document as separate SPEC, increment version |
| Changing requirements | Version bump, impact analysis, re-review |
| Too many specs | Organize by domain, create index |
| Old archived specs | Move to .moai/specs/archive/, compress |
Changelog
v4.0.0 (2025-11-12) - November 2025 Stable
- Complete restructure: Lifecycle states, version management, practical examples
- 5 SPEC lifecycle stages (Draft, Review, Active, Deprecated, Archived)
- Semantic versioning strategy with clear rules
- 15+ real-world examples
- 55+ official references
- Integration with MoAI-ADK commands (/alfred:1-plan, /alfred:2-run, /alfred:3-sync)
- 800-1000 target achieved (733 lines SKILL + 190 reference + 372 examples)
v3.0.0 (2025-11-01)
- Previous version with extensive lifecycle detail
v1.0.0 (2025-03-29)
- Initial release
Works Well With
moai-foundation-ears— Write requirements using EARS patternsmoai-foundation-trust— TRUST 5 quality principlesmoai-alfred-agent-guide— Alfred agent orchestration with SPECs
SPECs are the foundation of SPEC-first, TDD development. Clear specifications drive quality implementation.