Specification Phase: Standard Operating Procedure

Training Guide: Step-by-step procedures for executing the /specify command following workflow best practices.

Supporting references:

• reference.md - Classification decision tree, informed guess heuristics, defaults
• examples.md - Good specs (0-2 clarifications) vs bad specs (>5 clarifications)
• templates/informed-guess-template.md - Template for making reasonable assumptions

---

Phase Overview

Purpose: Transform natural language feature requests into structured specifications that enable planning and implementation.

Inputs:

• User's feature description (natural language)
• Existing roadmap entries (if applicable)
• Codebase context

Outputs:

• specs/NNN-slug/spec.md - Structured feature specification
• specs/NNN-slug/NOTES.md - Implementation notes and decisions
• specs/NNN-slug/visuals/README.md - Visual artifacts directory (if HAS_UI=true)
• specs/NNN-slug/workflow-state.yaml - Phase state tracking
• Updated roadmap (if feature from roadmap)

Expected duration: 10-15 minutes

---

Prerequisites

Environment checks:

• Git working tree clean
• Not on main branch (create feature branch: feature/NNN-slug)
• Required templates exist in .spec-flow/templates/

Knowledge requirements:

• Understanding of classification flags (HAS_UI, IS_IMPROVEMENT, HAS_METRICS, HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT)
• Informed guess heuristics for common technical decisions
• Clarification prioritization matrix (scope > security > UX > technical)

---

Execution Steps

Step 1: Parse and Normalize Input

Actions:

1. Extract feature description from user arguments
2. Generate slug using normalization rules (see reference.md)
   • Remove filler words: "add", "create", "we want to", "get our"
   • Normalize to lowercase kebab-case
   • Limit to 50 characters
3. Assign next available feature number (NNN)

Example:

Input: "We want to add student progress dashboard"
Slug: "student-progress-dashboard"
Number: 042
Directory: specs/042-student-progress-dashboard/

Quality check: Does slug clearly describe the feature without filler words?

---

Step 2: Check Roadmap Integration

Actions:

1. Search .spec-flow/memory/roadmap.md for exact slug match
2. If not found, search for fuzzy matches (similar terms)
3. If match found:
   • Set FROM_ROADMAP=true
   • Extract existing requirements, area, role, impact/effort scores
   • Move roadmap entry from "Backlog"/"Next" to "In Progress"
   • Add branch and spec links to roadmap entry

Example:

# Exact match
if grep -qi "^### ${SLUG}" .spec-flow/memory/roadmap.md; then
  FROM_ROADMAP=true
  # Reuse context saves ~10 minutes
fi

Quality check: If feature was pre-planned in roadmap, did we reuse that context?

---

Step 2.5: Load Project Documentation Context (NEW)

Purpose: Load architecture constraints from docs/project/ before generating spec to prevent hallucination.

Actions:

1. Check if project docs exist:

   if [ -d "docs/project" ]; then
     HAS_PROJECT_DOCS=true
     echo "✅ Project documentation found - loading architecture context"
   else
     echo "ℹ️  No project documentation (run /init-project recommended)"
     HAS_PROJECT_DOCS=false
   fi
   

2. If docs exist, read relevant files for spec phase:

   • tech-stack.md → Avoid suggesting wrong technologies
   • api-strategy.md → Follow established REST/GraphQL patterns
   • data-architecture.md → Reuse existing entities, avoid duplication
   • system-architecture.md → Identify integration points

3. Extract key constraints:

   # Extract tech stack
   FRONTEND=$(grep -A 1 "| Frontend" docs/project/tech-stack.md | tail -1 | awk '{print $3}')
   BACKEND=$(grep -A 1 "| Backend" docs/project/tech-stack.md | tail -1 | awk '{print $3}')
   DATABASE=$(grep -A 1 "| Database" docs/project/tech-stack.md | tail -1 | awk '{print $3}')
   
   # Extract API patterns
   API_STYLE=$(grep -A 1 "## API Style" docs/project/api-strategy.md | tail -1)
   AUTH_PROVIDER=$(grep -A 1 "## Authentication" docs/project/api-strategy.md | tail -1)
   
   # Extract existing entities from ERD
   ENTITIES=$(grep -oP '[A-Z_]+(?= \{)' docs/project/data-architecture.md)
   

4. Document context in NOTES.md:

   cat >> $NOTES_FILE <<EOF
   

Project Documentation Context

Source: `docs/project/` (loaded during spec phase)

Tech Stack Constraints (from tech-stack.md)

• Frontend: $FRONTEND
• Backend: $BACKEND
• Database: $DATABASE

API Patterns (from api-strategy.md)

• API Style: $API_STYLE
• Auth: $AUTH_PROVIDER

Existing Entities (from data-architecture.md)

• $ENTITIES

Spec Requirements:

• ✅ MUST use documented tech stack (no hallucinating MongoDB if PostgreSQL is documented)
• ✅ MUST follow API patterns (REST vs GraphQL per api-strategy.md)
• ✅ MUST check for duplicate entities before proposing new ones
• ❌ MUST NOT suggest different tech stack without justification

EOF

**Quality check**:
- Project docs loaded? ✅
- Constraints extracted and documented? ✅
- NOTES.md includes project context section? ✅

**Skip if**: No project docs exist (warn user but don't block)

**References**: See `.claude/skills/project-docs-integration.md` for detailed extraction logic

---

### Step 3: Classify Feature

**Actions**:
1. Apply classification decision tree (see [reference.md](reference.md#classification-decision-tree))
2. Set classification flags:
- **HAS_UI**: Does it include user-facing screens/components?
- **IS_IMPROVEMENT**: Does it optimize existing functionality with measurable baseline?
- **HAS_METRICS**: Does it track user behavior (HEART metrics)?
- **HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT**: Does it require env vars, migrations, breaking changes?

**Decision tree quick reference**:

UI keywords (screen, page, dashboard, form, modal, component, frontend, interface) → BUT NOT backend-only (API, endpoint, worker, cron, job, migration, health check) → HAS_UI = true

Improvement keywords (improve, optimize, enhance, speed up, reduce time) → AND mentions baseline (existing, current, slow, faster, better) → IS_IMPROVEMENT = true

Metrics keywords (track user, measure user, engagement, retention, conversion, analytics) → HAS_METRICS = true

Deployment keywords (migration, env variable, breaking change, docker, schema change) → HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT = true

**Quality check**: Does classification match feature intent? (No UI for backend workers, no improvement flag without baseline)

---

### Step 4: Determine Research Depth

**Actions**:
1. Count classification flags (`FLAG_COUNT = number of true flags`)
2. Select research depth based on complexity:
   - `FLAG_COUNT = 0`: **Minimal** (1-2 tools: constitution check, pattern search)
   - `FLAG_COUNT = 1`: **Standard** (3-5 tools: + UI scan, performance budgets, similar specs)
   - `FLAG_COUNT ≥ 2`: **Full** (5-8 tools: + design inspirations, web search, integration analysis)

**Research tools by depth**:

| Depth | Tools | Use Cases |
|-------|-------|-----------|
| Minimal | Constitution, Grep similar patterns | Simple backend endpoint, config change |
| Standard | + UI inventory, Performance budgets, Similar specs | Single-aspect feature (UI-only or backend-only) |
| Full | + Design inspirations, Web search, Integration points | Complex multi-aspect feature |

**Quality check**: Research depth matches complexity. Don't over-research simple features.

---

### Step 5: Apply Informed Guess Strategy

**Actions**:
1. Identify technical decisions needed
2. For each decision, check if it has a reasonable default (see [reference.md](reference.md#informed-guess-heuristics))
3. **Use defaults for** (do NOT clarify):
   - Performance targets (API <500ms, Frontend FCP <1.5s)
   - Data retention (Logs 90 days, Analytics 365 days)
   - Error handling (User-friendly messages + error IDs)
   - Rate limiting (100 req/min per user)
   - Authentication (OAuth2 for users, JWT for APIs)
4. **Document assumptions** in spec.md "Assumptions" section

**Example - Performance targets**:
```markdown
## Performance Targets (Assumed)
- API endpoints: <500ms (95th percentile)
- Frontend FCP: <1.5s, TTI: <3.0s
- Lighthouse: Performance ≥85, Accessibility ≥95

_Assumption: Standard web application performance expectations applied._

Quality check: No clarifications for decisions with industry-standard defaults.

---

Step 6: Generate Clarifications (Max 3)

Actions:

1. Identify ambiguities that cannot be reasonably assumed
2. Prioritize by impact using matrix (see reference.md):
   • Critical (always ask): Scope boundary, Security/Privacy, Breaking changes
   • High (ask if ambiguous): User experience decisions
   • Medium (use defaults): Performance SLAs, Technical stack choices
   • Low (use defaults): Error messages, Rate limits
3. Keep only top 3 most critical clarifications
4. Format as: [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Specific question?]

Example - Good clarifications:

[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Should dashboard show all students or only assigned classes?]
[NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Should parents have access to this dashboard?]

Example - Bad clarifications (have defaults):

❌ [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: What's the target response time?] → Use 500ms default
❌ [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Which database to use?] → Planning-phase decision
❌ [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: What error message format?] → Use standard pattern

Quality check: ≤3 clarifications total, all are scope/security/UX critical.

---

Step 7: Write Success Criteria

Actions:

1. For each requirement, define measurable success criteria
2. Use quantifiable metrics, not subjective statements
3. Include measurement method where applicable
4. Avoid technology-specific criteria (focus on outcomes)

Good criteria format:

## Success Criteria
- User can complete registration in <3 minutes (measured via PostHog funnel)
- API response time <500ms for 95th percentile (measured via Datadog APM)
- Lighthouse accessibility score ≥95 (measured via CI Lighthouse check)
- 95% of user searches return results in <1 second

Bad criteria to avoid:

❌ System works correctly (not measurable)
❌ API is fast (not quantifiable)
❌ UI looks good (subjective)
❌ React components render efficiently (technology-specific, not outcome-focused)

Quality check: Every criterion is measurable, quantifiable, and outcome-focused.

---

Step 8: Generate Artifacts

Actions:

1. Create specs/NNN-slug/ directory
2. Render spec.md from template with:
   • Classification flags
   • Requirements (from roadmap or user input)
   • Assumptions (documented informed guesses)
   • Clarifications (≤3)
   • Success criteria (measurable)
   • Deployment considerations (if HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT=true)
   • HEART metrics (if HAS_METRICS=true)
   • Hypothesis (if IS_IMPROVEMENT=true)
3. Create NOTES.md for implementation decisions
4. Create visuals/README.md (if HAS_UI=true)
5. Initialize workflow-state.yaml

Quality check: All required artifacts created, template variables filled correctly.

---

Step 9: Validate and Commit

Actions:

1. Run validation checks:
   • Requirements checklist complete (if exists)
   • Clarifications ≤3
   • Classification flags match feature description
   • Success criteria are measurable
   • Roadmap updated (if FROM_ROADMAP=true)
2. Commit spec with proper message:

   git add specs/NNN-slug/
   git commit -m "feat: add spec for <feature-name>
   
   Generated specification with classification:
   - HAS_UI: <true/false>
   - IS_IMPROVEMENT: <true/false>
   - HAS_METRICS: <true/false>
   - HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT: <true/false>
   
   Clarifications: N
   Research depth: <minimal/standard/full>
   

Quality check: Spec committed, roadmap updated, workflow-state.yaml initialized.

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid

🚫 Over-Clarification (Too Many [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Markers)

Impact: Delays planning phase, frustrates users

Scenario:

Spec with 7 clarifications (limit: 3):
- [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: What format? CSV or JSON?] → Use JSON default
- [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Rate limiting strategy?] → Use 100/min default
- [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: Maximum file size?] → Use 50MB default

Prevention:

• Use industry-standard defaults (see reference.md)
• Only mark critical scope/security decisions as NEEDS CLARIFICATION
• Document assumptions in spec.md "Assumptions" section
• Prioritize by impact: scope > security > UX > technical

If encountered: Reduce to 3 most critical, convert others to documented assumptions.

---

🚫 Wrong Classification (HAS_UI=true for backend-only)

Impact: Creates unnecessary UI artifacts, wastes time

Scenario:

Feature: "Add background worker to process uploads"
Classified: HAS_UI=true (WRONG - no user-facing UI)
Result: Generated screens.yaml for backend-only feature

Root cause: Keyword "process" triggered false positive without checking for backend-only keywords

Prevention:

1. Check for backend-only keywords: worker, cron, job, migration, health check, API, endpoint, service
2. Require BOTH UI keyword AND absence of backend-only keywords
3. Use classification decision tree (see reference.md)

---

🚫 Roadmap Slug Mismatch

Impact: Misses context reuse opportunity, duplicates planning work

Scenario:

User input: "We want to add Student Progress Dashboard"
Generated slug: "add-student-progress-dashboard" (BAD - includes "add")
Roadmap entry: "### student-progress-dashboard" (slug without "add")
Result: No match found, created fresh spec instead of reusing roadmap context

Prevention:

1. Remove filler words during slug generation: "add", "create", "we want to"
2. Normalize to lowercase kebab-case consistently
3. Offer fuzzy matches if exact match not found

---

🚫 Too Many Research Tools

Impact: Wastes time, exceeds token budget

Scenario:

# 15 research tools for simple backend endpoint (WRONG)
Glob *.py
Glob *.ts
Glob *.tsx
Grep "database"
Grep "model"
Grep "endpoint"
...10 more tools

Prevention:

• Use research depth guidelines: FLAG_COUNT = 0 → 1-2 tools only
• For simple features: Constitution check + pattern search is sufficient
• Reserve full research (5-8 tools) for complex multi-aspect features

Correct approach:

# 2 research tools for simple backend endpoint (CORRECT)
grep "similar endpoint" specs/*/spec.md
grep "BaseModel" api/app/models/*.py

---

🚫 Vague Success Criteria

Impact: Cannot validate implementation, leads to scope creep

Bad examples:

❌ System works correctly (not measurable)
❌ API is fast (not quantifiable)
❌ UI looks good (subjective)

Good examples:

✅ User can complete registration in <3 minutes (measured via PostHog funnel)
✅ API response time <500ms for 95th percentile (measured via Datadog APM)
✅ Lighthouse accessibility score ≥95 (measured via CI Lighthouse check)

Prevention: Every criterion must answer: "How do we measure this objectively?"

---

🚫 Technology-Specific Success Criteria

Impact: Couples spec to implementation details, reduces flexibility

Bad examples:

❌ React components render efficiently
❌ Redis cache hit rate >80%
❌ PostgreSQL queries use proper indexes

Good examples (outcome-focused):

✅ Page load time <1.5s (First Contentful Paint)
✅ 95% of user searches return results in <1 second
✅ Database queries complete in <100ms average

Prevention: Focus on user-facing outcomes, not implementation mechanisms.

---

Best Practices

✅ Informed Guess Strategy

When to use:

• Non-critical technical decisions
• Industry standards exist
• Default won't impact scope or security

When NOT to use:

• Scope-defining decisions
• Security/privacy critical choices
• No reasonable default exists

Approach:

1. Check if decision has reasonable default (see reference.md)
2. Document assumption clearly in spec
3. Note that user can override if needed

Example:

## Performance Targets (Assumed)
- API response time: <500ms (95th percentile)
- Frontend FCP: <1.5s
- Database queries: <100ms

**Assumptions**:
- Standard web app performance expectations applied
- If requirements differ, specify in "Performance Requirements" section

Result: Reduces clarifications from 5-7 to 0-2, saves ~10 minutes

---

✅ Roadmap Integration

When to use:

• Feature name matches roadmap entry
• Roadmap uses consistent slug format

Approach:

1. Normalize user input to slug format
2. Search roadmap for exact match
3. If found: Extract requirements, area, role, impact/effort
4. Move to "In Progress" section automatically
5. Add branch and spec links

Result: Saves ~10 minutes, requirements already vetted, automatic status tracking

---

✅ Classification Decision Tree

Best practice: Follow decision tree systematically (see reference.md)

Process:

1. Check UI keywords → Set HAS_UI (but verify no backend-only exclusions)
2. Check improvement keywords + baseline → Set IS_IMPROVEMENT
3. Check metrics keywords → Set HAS_METRICS
4. Check deployment keywords → Set HAS_DEPLOYMENT_IMPACT

Result: 90%+ classification accuracy, correct artifacts generated

---

Phase Checklist

Pre-phase checks:

• Git working tree clean
• Not on main branch
• Required templates exist (.spec-flow/templates/)

During phase:

• Slug normalized (no filler words, lowercase kebab-case)
• Roadmap checked for existing entry
• Classification flags validated (no conflicting keywords)
• Research depth appropriate for complexity (FLAG_COUNT-based)
• Clarifications ≤3 (use informed guesses for rest)
• Success criteria measurable and quantifiable
• Assumptions documented clearly

Post-phase validation:

• Requirements checklist complete (if exists)
• spec.md committed with proper message
• NOTES.md initialized
• Roadmap updated (if FROM_ROADMAP=true)
• visuals/ created (if HAS_UI=true)
• workflow-state.yaml initialized

---

Quality Standards

Specification quality targets:

• Clarifications: ≤3 per spec
• Classification accuracy: ≥90%
• Success criteria: 100% measurable
• Time to spec: ≤15 minutes
• Rework rate: <5%

What makes a good spec:

• Clear scope boundaries (what's in, what's out)
• Measurable success criteria (with measurement methods)
• Reasonable assumptions documented
• Minimal clarifications (only critical scope/security)
• Correct classification (matches feature intent)
• Context reuse (from roadmap when available)

What makes a bad spec:

• 5 clarifications (over-clarifying technical defaults)

• Vague success criteria ("works correctly", "is fast")
• Technology-specific criteria (couples to implementation)
• Wrong classification (UI flag for backend-only)
• Missing roadmap integration (duplicates planning work)

---

Completion Criteria

Phase is complete when:

• All pre-phase checks passed
• All execution steps completed
• All post-phase validations passed
• Spec committed to git
• workflow-state.yaml shows currentPhase: specification and status: completed

Ready to proceed to next phase (/clarify or /plan):

• If clarifications >0 → Run /clarify
• If clarifications = 0 → Run /plan

---

Troubleshooting

Issue: Too many clarifications (>3) Solution: Review reference.md for defaults, convert non-critical questions to assumptions

Issue: Classification seems wrong Solution: Re-check decision tree, verify no backend-only keywords for HAS_UI=true

Issue: Roadmap entry exists but wasn't matched Solution: Check slug normalization, offer fuzzy matches, update roadmap slug format

Issue: Success criteria are vague Solution: Add quantifiable metrics and measurement methods (see examples above)

---

This SOP guides the specification phase. Refer to reference.md for technical details and examples.md for real-world patterns.