| name | moai-workflow-spec |
| description | SPEC workflow orchestration with EARS format, requirement clarification, and Plan-Run-Sync integration for MoAI-ADK development methodology |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| category | workflow |
| tags | workflow, spec, ears, requirements, moai-adk, planning |
| updated | Tue Dec 30 2025 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) |
| status | active |
| author | MoAI-ADK Team |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob |
SPEC Workflow Management
Quick Reference (30 seconds)
SPEC Workflow Orchestration - Comprehensive specification management using EARS format for systematic requirement definition and Plan-Run-Sync workflow integration.
Core Capabilities:
- EARS Format Specifications: Five requirement patterns for clarity
- Requirement Clarification: Four-step systematic process
- SPEC Document Templates: Standardized structure for consistency
- Plan-Run-Sync Integration: Seamless workflow connection
- Parallel Development: Git Worktree-based SPEC isolation
- Quality Gates: TRUST 5 framework validation
EARS Five Patterns:
- Ubiquitous: The system shall always perform action - Always active
- Event-Driven: WHEN event occurs THEN action executes - Trigger-response
- State-Driven: IF condition is true THEN action executes - Conditional behavior
- Unwanted: The system shall not perform action - Prohibition
- Optional: Where possible, provide feature - Nice-to-have
When to Use:
- Feature planning and requirement definition
- SPEC document creation and maintenance
- Parallel feature development coordination
- Quality assurance and validation planning
Quick Commands:
- Create new SPEC: /moai:1-plan "user authentication system"
- Create parallel SPECs with Worktrees: /moai:1-plan "login feature" "signup feature" --worktree
- Create SPEC with new branch: /moai:1-plan "payment processing" --branch
- Update existing SPEC: /moai:1-plan SPEC-001 "add OAuth support"
Implementation Guide (5 minutes)
Core Concepts
SPEC-First Development Philosophy:
- EARS format ensures unambiguous requirements
- Requirement clarification prevents scope creep
- Systematic validation through test scenarios
- Integration with TDD workflow for implementation
- Quality gates enforce completion criteria
- Constitution reference ensures project-wide consistency
Constitution Reference (SDD 2025 Standard)
Constitution defines the project DNA that all SPECs must respect. Before creating any SPEC, verify alignment with project constitution defined in .moai/project/tech.md.
Constitution Components:
- Technology Stack: Required versions and frameworks
- Naming Conventions: Variable, function, and file naming standards
- Forbidden Libraries: Libraries explicitly prohibited with alternatives
- Architectural Patterns: Layering rules and dependency directions
- Security Standards: Authentication patterns and encryption requirements
- Logging Standards: Log format and structured logging requirements
Constitution Verification:
- All SPEC technology choices must align with Constitution stack versions
- No SPEC may introduce forbidden libraries or patterns
- SPEC must follow naming conventions defined in Constitution
- SPEC must respect architectural boundaries and layering
WHY: Constitution prevents architectural drift and ensures maintainability IMPACT: SPECs aligned with Constitution reduce integration conflicts significantly
SPEC Workflow Stages
Stage 1 - User Input Analysis: Parse natural language feature description Stage 2 - Requirement Clarification: Four-step systematic process Stage 3 - EARS Pattern Application: Structure requirements using five patterns Stage 4 - Success Criteria Definition: Establish completion metrics Stage 5 - Test Scenario Generation: Create verification test cases Stage 6 - SPEC Document Generation: Produce standardized markdown output
EARS Format Deep Dive
Ubiquitous Requirements - Always Active:
- Use case: System-wide quality attributes
- Examples: Logging, input validation, error handling
- Test strategy: Include in all feature test suites as common verification
Event-Driven Requirements - Trigger-Response:
- Use case: User interactions and inter-system communication
- Examples: Button clicks, file uploads, payment completions
- Test strategy: Event simulation with expected response verification
State-Driven Requirements - Conditional Behavior:
- Use case: Access control, state machines, conditional business logic
- Examples: Account status checks, inventory verification, permission checks
- Test strategy: State setup with conditional behavior verification
Unwanted Requirements - Prohibited Actions:
- Use case: Security vulnerabilities, data integrity protection
- Examples: No plaintext passwords, no unauthorized access, no PII in logs
- Test strategy: Negative test cases with prohibited behavior verification
Optional Requirements - Enhancement Features:
- Use case: MVP scope definition, feature prioritization
- Examples: OAuth login, dark mode, offline mode
- Test strategy: Conditional test execution based on implementation status
Requirement Clarification Process
Step 0 - Assumption Analysis (Philosopher Framework):
Before defining scope, surface and validate underlying assumptions using AskUserQuestion.
Assumption Categories:
- Technical Assumptions: Technology capabilities, API availability, performance characteristics
- Business Assumptions: User behavior, market requirements, timeline feasibility
- Team Assumptions: Skill availability, resource allocation, knowledge gaps
- Integration Assumptions: Third-party service reliability, compatibility expectations
Assumption Documentation:
- Assumption Statement: Clear description of what is assumed
- Confidence Level: High, Medium, or Low based on evidence
- Evidence Basis: What supports this assumption
- Risk if Wrong: Consequence if assumption proves false
- Validation Method: How to verify before committing significant effort
Step 0.5 - Root Cause Analysis:
For feature requests or problem-driven SPECs, apply Five Whys:
- Surface Problem: What is the user observing or requesting?
- First Why: What immediate need drives this request?
- Second Why: What underlying problem creates that need?
- Third Why: What systemic factor contributes?
- Root Cause: What fundamental issue must the solution address?
Step 1 - Scope Definition:
- Identify supported authentication methods
- Define validation rules and constraints
- Determine failure handling strategy
- Establish session management approach
Step 2 - Constraint Extraction:
- Performance Requirements: Response time targets
- Security Requirements: OWASP compliance, encryption standards
- Compatibility Requirements: Supported browsers and devices
- Scalability Requirements: Concurrent user targets
Step 3 - Success Criteria Definition:
- Test Coverage: Minimum percentage target
- Response Time: Percentile targets (P50, P95, P99)
- Functional Completion: All normal scenarios pass verification
- Quality Gates: Zero linter warnings, zero security vulnerabilities
Step 4 - Test Scenario Creation:
- Normal Cases: Valid inputs with expected outputs
- Error Cases: Invalid inputs with error handling
- Edge Cases: Boundary conditions and corner cases
- Security Cases: Injection attacks, privilege escalation attempts
Plan-Run-Sync Workflow Integration
PLAN Phase (/moai:1-plan):
- manager-spec agent analyzes user input
- EARS format requirements generation
- Requirement clarification with user interaction
- SPEC document creation in .moai/specs/ directory
- Git branch creation (optional --branch flag)
- Git Worktree setup (optional --worktree flag)
RUN Phase (/moai:2-run):
- manager-tdd agent loads SPEC document
- RED-GREEN-REFACTOR TDD cycle execution
- moai-workflow-testing skill reference for test patterns
- Domain Expert agent delegation (expert-backend, expert-frontend, etc.)
- Quality validation through manager-quality agent
SYNC Phase (/moai:3-sync):
- manager-docs agent synchronizes documentation
- API documentation generation from SPEC
- README and architecture document updates
- CHANGELOG entry creation
- Version control commit with SPEC reference
Parallel Development with Git Worktree
Worktree Concept:
- Independent working directories for multiple branches
- Each SPEC gets isolated development environment
- No branch switching needed for parallel work
- Reduced merge conflicts through feature isolation
Worktree Creation:
- Command /moai:1-plan "login feature" "signup feature" --worktree creates multiple SPECs
- Result creates project-worktrees directory with SPEC-specific subdirectories
Worktree Benefits:
- Parallel Development: Multiple features developed simultaneously
- Team Collaboration: Clear ownership boundaries per SPEC
- Dependency Isolation: Different library versions per feature
- Risk Reduction: Unstable code does not affect other features
Advanced Implementation (10+ minutes)
For advanced patterns including SPEC templates, validation automation, and workflow optimization, see:
- Advanced Patterns: Custom SPEC templates, validation automation
- Reference Guide: SPEC metadata schema, integration examples
- Examples: Real-world SPEC documents, workflow scenarios
Resources
SPEC File Organization
Directory Structure:
- .moai/specs/: SPEC document files (SPEC-001-feature-name.md)
- .moai/memory/: Session state files (last-session-state.json)
- .moai/docs/: Generated documentation (api-documentation.md)
SPEC Metadata Schema
Required Fields:
- SPEC ID: Sequential number (SPEC-001, SPEC-002, etc.)
- Title: Feature name in English
- Created: ISO 8601 timestamp
- Status: Planned, In Progress, Completed, Blocked
- Priority: High, Medium, Low
- Assigned: Agent responsible for implementation
Optional Fields:
- Related SPECs: Dependencies and related features
- Epic: Parent feature group
- Estimated Effort: Time estimate in hours or story points
- Labels: Tags for categorization
SPEC Lifecycle Management (SDD 2025 Standard)
Lifecycle Level Field:
Level 1 - spec-first:
- Description: SPEC written before implementation, discarded after completion
- Use Case: One-time features, prototypes, experiments
- Maintenance Policy: No maintenance required after implementation
Level 2 - spec-anchored:
- Description: SPEC maintained alongside implementation for evolution
- Use Case: Core features, API contracts, integration points
- Maintenance Policy: Quarterly review, update when implementation changes
Level 3 - spec-as-source:
- Description: SPEC is the single source of truth; only SPEC is edited by humans
- Use Case: Critical systems, regulated environments, code generation workflows
- Maintenance Policy: SPEC changes trigger implementation regeneration
Lifecycle Transition Rules:
- spec-first to spec-anchored: When feature becomes production-critical
- spec-anchored to spec-as-source: When compliance or regeneration workflow required
- Downgrade allowed but requires explicit justification in SPEC history
Quality Metrics
SPEC Quality Indicators:
- Requirement Clarity: All EARS patterns used appropriately
- Test Coverage: All requirements have corresponding test scenarios
- Constraint Completeness: Technical and business constraints defined
- Success Criteria Measurability: Quantifiable completion metrics
Validation Checklist:
- All EARS requirements testable
- No ambiguous language (should, might, usually)
- All error cases documented
- Performance targets quantified
- Security requirements OWASP-compliant
Works Well With
- moai-foundation-core: SPEC-First TDD methodology and TRUST 5 framework
- moai-workflow-testing: TDD implementation and test automation
- moai-workflow-project: Project initialization and configuration
- moai-worktree: Git Worktree management for parallel development
- manager-spec: SPEC creation and requirement analysis agent
- manager-tdd: TDD implementation based on SPEC requirements
- manager-quality: TRUST 5 quality validation and gate enforcement
Integration Examples
Sequential Workflow:
- Step 1 PLAN: /moai:1-plan "user authentication system"
- Step 2 RUN: /moai:2-run SPEC-001
- Step 3 SYNC: /moai:3-sync SPEC-001
Parallel Workflow:
- Create multiple SPECs: /moai:1-plan "backend API" "frontend UI" "database schema" --worktree
- Session 1: /moai:2-run SPEC-001 (backend API)
- Session 2: /moai:2-run SPEC-002 (frontend UI)
- Session 3: /moai:2-run SPEC-003 (database schema)
Token Management
Session Strategy:
- PLAN phase uses approximately 30% of session tokens
- RUN phase uses approximately 60% of session tokens
- SYNC phase uses approximately 10% of session tokens
Context Optimization:
- SPEC document persists in .moai/specs/ directory
- Session memory in .moai/memory/ for cross-session context
- Minimal context transfer through SPEC ID reference
- Agent delegation reduces token overhead
Version: 1.2.0 (SDD 2025 Standard Integration) Last Updated: 2025-12-30 Integration Status: Complete - Full Plan-Run-Sync workflow with SDD 2025 features