---

name: spec description: "Spec phase. Converts user requirements into a numbered Requirements + Acceptance Criteria document saved as SPEC-{timestamp}.md. Prompts /team suggestion when 3+ requirements are detected."

Spec — Define What to Build

CRITICAL: Run HARNESS_DIR=$(epic-harness path) first. NEVER use .harness/ in the project directory.

Process

1. Understand the request

   • Read any existing context (CLAUDE.md, README, codebase structure)
   • If the request is vague, ask focused questions (max 3 at a time)
   • Never assume — clarify ambiguity before proceeding

2. Produce the spec Write a concise spec covering:

   • Goal: One sentence — what does this achieve?
   • Scope: What's included and explicitly excluded
   • Requirements: Numbered list (R1, R2, ...) of concrete, testable behaviors
   • Acceptance criteria: Numbered list (AC1, AC2, ...) — observable outcomes that prove each requirement is met
   • Technical notes: Constraints, dependencies, edge cases

3. Confirm with user Show the spec in digestible chunks. Get explicit approval before proceeding.

Output

Save the approved spec to $HARNESS_DIR/specs/SPEC-{timestamp}.md using this exact format:

---
status: approved
created: {ISO-8601 timestamp}
goal_slug: {kebab-case-goal-summary}
---

# SPEC-{timestamp}: {Goal}

## Goal
{One sentence}

## Scope
- In: {what is included}
- Out: {what is explicitly excluded}

## Requirements
- R1: {concrete testable behavior}
- R2: {concrete testable behavior}

## Acceptance Criteria
- AC1 (R1): {observable outcome proving R1}
- AC2 (R2): {observable outcome proving R2}

## Technical Notes
{Constraints, dependencies, edge cases}

After saving:

1. Count the Requirements (R1, R2, ...). If 3 or more, check team status: epic team status.
   • If no team is linked: suggest "This spec has N requirements. Consider running /team to set up a project-specific agent team before /go."
   • If a team is already linked: skip this hint.
2. Tell the user: "Spec saved. Run /go to start building."

Anti-Rationalization

Excuse	Rebuttal	What to do instead
"It's a small change, I'll just code it"	Small changes still have wrong assumptions	Write the spec — it takes 2 minutes
"I'll refine the spec after coding"	Spec after code is documentation, not planning	Spec first, code second
"The user didn't give me enough detail"	Then ask — don't invent requirements	Ask focused questions, max 3 at a time

Evidence Required

• Spec file exists at $HARNESS_DIR/specs/SPEC-{timestamp}.md
• Frontmatter has status: approved
• Every Requirement has at least one Acceptance Criterion
• ACs are observable (can be tested or verified)

Red Flags

• Writing code before the spec is approved
• Assuming requirements that weren't stated
• Producing a 3-page spec for a 1-line change
• Acceptance criteria that cannot be verified by a test or observation
• Skipping this phase for non-trivial features