Workflow Idea To Spec

Renamed: formerly workflow-product-discovery — now /workflow-idea-to-spec. The old name no longer resolves as a slash command.

Quick Summary

Goal: Convert a raw idea/vision/problem into one reviewed, docs-synced, provisional, tech-free 8-section Feature Spec with §8 planned TCs and conditional large-idea decomposition; stop there, never create a PBI backlog or implicit roadmap. Chain workflow-spec-to-pbi/workflow-idea-to-pbi as appropriate; use workflow-code-to-spec only after implementation exists.

Summary:

• Main steps (run in order): (1) brainstorm the raw idea and classify the four isLargeIdea signals; (2) conditionally carry the complete five-field large_idea_decomposition block; (3) run spec discovery, conditional scenario analysis, domain analysis, and rationale review; (4) capture the idea; (5) author the provisional Feature Spec and §8 test specs; (6) run artifact review, UI design-spec, clarification, rationale review, docs sync, presentation, and workflow end gates.
• Large ideas embed stable slice IDs, dependency order, non-goals, risk/evidence owners, and deferred-work owners in the Feature Spec and downstream presentation/mock-up inputs. Ordinary ideas omit the block and roadmap fields; no default workflow step creates docs/product-roadmap.md.
• The workflow stops at the reviewed, docs-synced Feature Spec; it never decomposes into PBIs/stories or invents unresolved product meaning. Explicit --mode=roadmap remains a separate, user-requested route.

Workflow:

1. Frame — brainstorm the idea, classify large-idea signals, capture any required decomposition block, analyze domain, and validate the problem framing (why-review).
2. Author — capture the idea, then author the canonical provisional Feature Spec (spec [mode=draft]) + §8 test specs (spec [mode=tests]).
3. Review & Sync — review the test specs and the Feature Spec, validate rationale (why-review), sync docs.

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION keep claims evidence-based (file:line) with confidence >80% to act.
• MUST ATTENTION keep task tracking updated as each step starts/completes.
• MUST ATTENTION define success criteria before execution and loop until observable verification passes.
• MUST ATTENTION when creating/reviewing specs or tests, name Business Intent / Invariant Guarded or the protected business intent/invariant and ensure the test would fail if that intent breaks.
• MUST ATTENTION author the spec via spec [mode=draft] — idea-sourced, no code yet → §8 Evidence: TBD, Status: Planned, frontmatter provisional: true.
• MUST ATTENTION apply the shared isLargeIdea = multipleIndependentOutcomes || ambiguousOrResearchHeavy || releaseScopeDecomposition || oversizedPbiThatMustSplit rule before authoring. A true signal requires the complete large_idea_decomposition block (outcome_slices, dependencies_order, non_goals, risks_evidence, deferred_work_owner) in the Feature Spec; all-false ideas omit it. An explicitly supplied roadmap is read-only context, not a writer trigger.
• NEVER decompose into PBIs/stories/backlog here — that is workflow-spec-to-pbi's job. NEVER skip the Feature Spec authoring core.

When to Use

• PO/BA has a raw product vision, problem statement, or "we need to build X" starting point and wants a canonical Feature Spec
• Team wants to capture intended behavior as a tech-free spec BEFORE any code exists (spec-first / TDD-first)
• A single idea or capability needs a reviewed, AI-implementable Feature Spec as the source of truth for later implementation

When NOT to Use

• Implementation already exists and you want a spec FROM code → use workflow-code-to-spec
• You want a full grooming-ready PBI backlog from the idea in one pass → use workflow-idea-to-pbi
• You already have a Feature Spec and want PBIs from it → use workflow-spec-to-pbi
• Implementation work (code writing) → use workflow-feature or workflow-big-feature
• Bug fixes → use workflow-bugfix

Key Mechanics

1. Embedded Decomposition → Capability to Spec

Run /brainstorm to converge the capability and evaluate the four large-idea signals. When any signal is true, record the complete decomposition block in the owning Feature Spec: stable slice IDs, dependency edges, non-goals, risk/evidence owners, and deferred-work owners. Run /scenario after spec discovery when the decomposition or supplied scope needs replay, state, ownership, persistence, recovery, or evidence analysis. Do not invoke the standalone product-roadmap writer unless the user explicitly requests a roadmap deliverable.

1a. Brainstorm → Converge on the Capability to Spec

The /brainstorm step frames the idea using the Double Diamond process:

• Problem framing: POV statement, 5 Whys / Fishbone, JTBD job stories, HMW questions
• Opportunity framing: Opportunity Solution Tree (enhancement) OR Lean Canvas (new product)
• Ideation: SCAMPER, Crazy 8s, Impact Mapping
• Convergence: pick the single feature/capability to author as a Feature Spec

Output: the converged capability (or a short list if multiple distinct capabilities emerge). AI presents the framing and confirms scope: "Which capability should we author as a Feature Spec?" If multiple distinct capabilities are in scope, confirm with the user and author one Feature Spec per capability (sub-agent per capability for 4+ — see Scale awareness).

1b. Spec-Discovery (Landscape Investigation — After scope brainstorm, Before domain-analysis)

/spec-discovery investigates the surrounding system BEFORE authoring: it Globs docs/specs/** to classify every related / overlapping / affected Feature Spec, investigates related code (graph-expanded when .code-graph/graph.db exists), and surfaces gaps, missing test cases / user stories, and the invariant landscape the idea must respect. It ends in a BLOCKING scope-decision gate — author a NEW spec, EXTEND an existing one, or SPLIT into N — so no duplicate / overlapping spec is authored. Greenfield (no specs + no code) short-circuits with a recorded reason.

2. Why-Review Gate (After domain-analysis, Before spec authoring)

Before authoring the spec, validate the idea framing with /why-review:

Challenge prompts:

• Is this truly the right problem to solve? What was deprioritized and why?
• Pre-mortem: if this is built and misses in 6 months, what was the root cause?
• Are there systemic alternatives (infrastructure change, process change) that make this unnecessary?

3. Spec Authoring Flow (core mechanic — idea → provisional Feature Spec)

These steps run in sequence. Spec-driven order: idea → draft Feature Spec → test specs → review.

Provisional output: because no code exists yet, the spec is provisional — §8 TCs carry Evidence: TBD and Status: Planned, and frontmatter carries provisional: true. The first workflow-code-to-spec / spec [mode=update] run against real code upgrades TBD → real [Source:] anchors and clears the provisional flag.

Spec-hub coupling (§6 interaction surface ↔ UI artifacts): the /design-spec produced here is NOT a standalone artifact — it is the deep companion of the governing Feature Spec's §6 interaction surface (View Inventory / Navigation Map / Key UI States / per-story click-path). design-spec seeds from §6 and records its own path in the spec's design_spec: frontmatter so the spec stays the navigable hub: a reader goes spec → §6 thin intent → design-spec deep companion, and the two never drift. Keep deep visual fidelity (layout, tokens, pixel detail) in the design-spec, never in §6. See the SYNC:ui-intent-layer block below for the full rule — do not restate it here. Backend-only ideas (no UI) → skip /design-spec and state that reason.

4. Handoff

At /workflow-end, AI presents:

• Session summary: M Feature Specs authored (provisional), §8 TC counts, open questions (confidence < 80%)
• Feature Specs authored: docs/specs/{Bucket}/README.{Feature}.md paths
• Provisional note: these specs carry Evidence: TBD + provisional: true until code lands — reconcile via workflow-code-to-spec / spec [mode=update] once implemented
• Recommended next workflow: /start-workflow workflow-spec-to-pbi (decompose the Feature Spec(s) into a grooming-ready PBI backlog) OR /start-workflow workflow-feature (implement directly from the spec)

Conditional Skip Rules

IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps: /web-research -> /deep-research -> /brainstorm -> /spec-discovery -> /scenario -> /domain-analysis -> /why-review -> /idea -> /spec [mode=draft] -> /spec [mode=tests] -> /artifact-review --type=spec-tests -> /artifact-review -> /design-spec -> /spec-clarify -> /why-review -> /docs-update -> /feature-presentation -> /workflow-end -> /watzup

[BLOCKING] Each selected step MUST ATTENTION invoke its Skill tool — marking a selected task completed without skill invocation is a workflow violation. /scenario is conditional: run it only when the embedded decomposition or supplied scope needs adversarial replay, state, ownership, persistence, recovery, or evidence analysis; otherwise record the skip with evidence and an explicit reason. NEVER batch-complete validation gates.

Activate the workflow-idea-to-spec workflow. Run /start-workflow workflow-idea-to-spec with the user's prompt as context.

Steps: /web-research → /deep-research → /brainstorm → /spec-discovery → /scenario → /domain-analysis → /why-review → /idea → /spec [mode=draft] → /spec [mode=tests] → /artifact-review --type=spec-tests → /artifact-review → /design-spec → /spec-clarify → /why-review → /docs-update → /feature-presentation → /workflow-end → /watzup

Scale awareness: When the brainstorm converges on multiple distinct capabilities, this workflow authors one Feature Spec per capability. For 4+ capabilities, spawn one spec sub-agent per capability in ONE message (each gets the framing context + output path); the main context assembles and reviews. Use incremental-write patterns to prevent context overrun.

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:

Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect. Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns. When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

Nested Task Expansion Contract — For workflow-step invocation, the [Workflow] ... row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks.

1. Call TaskList first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set nested=true and record parentTaskId; otherwise run standalone.
2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects [N.M] /skill-name — phase.
3. When nested, link the parent with TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds]).
4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent.
5. Mark exactly one child in_progress before work and completed immediately after evidence is written.
6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason.

Blocked until: TaskList done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked in_progress.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

Incremental Result Persistence — MANDATORY for all sub-agents or heavy inline steps processing >3 files.

1. Before starting: Create report file plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md and record Run ID, Task ID, Attempt ID, target scope, and target fingerprint.
2. After each file/section reviewed: Append findings, evidence, changed paths, and gaps immediately — never hold them in memory.
3. Delegated return: A sub-agent emits only the structured SYNC:subagent-return-contract envelope with exact totals, salient Critical/High findings (maximum ten), current attempt, and Full report: path. Inline user-facing output: Preserve the skill's requested explanation or teaching, with links to the persisted evidence; the delegated transport limit does not replace that deliverable. Do not paste a full review report into an envelope.
4. Parent synthesis: The main agent reads the full report for synthesis, acceptance, deduplication, and repair planning — not only when a named blocker exists. It preserves all severities beyond the transport cap.
5. Read-only boundary: A read-only leaf may write its report/repair proposal but MUST NOT edit source, generated output, or user data; the parent/owner performs repairs after acceptance.
6. Advancement gate: The parent records ACCEPTED for the current Attempt ID only after reconciling target, totals, gaps, and changed paths; stale or late attempts cannot advance dependent work.

Why: Context cutoff mid-execution loses ALL in-memory findings. Each disk write survives compaction. Partial results are better than no results, while explicit identity prevents a late result from being mistaken for the current run.

Report naming: plans/reports/{skill-name}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md

Sub-Agent Return Contract — When this skill spawns a sub-agent, the sub-agent MUST return ONLY the structured envelope below. Main agent reads the envelope first, then opens the referenced report for synthesis, acceptance, deduplication, or repair planning; a full report is never pasted inline.

## Sub-Agent Result: [skill-name]

Status: ✅ PASS | ⚠️ PARTIAL | ❌ FAIL
Confidence: [0-100]%
Run ID: [stable run identifier]
Task ID: [parent task or phase identifier]
Attempt ID: [monotonic attempt/revision identifier]
Target: [exact files/paths or scope] @ [target fingerprint/commit]
Changed paths: [none | exact paths]
Finding totals: Critical=[n] | High=[n] | Medium=[n] | Low=[n]
Acceptance: PENDING | ACCEPTED | REJECTED — parent records the decision

### Findings (Critical/High surfaced — max 10 bullets)

- [severity] [file:line] [finding]

### Gaps / Unverified

- [missing host, runtime, coverage, or evidence limitation]

### Actions Taken

- [file changed] [what changed]

### Blockers (if any)

- [blocker description, or `none`]

Full report: plans/reports/[skill-name]-[date]-[slug].md

The ten-bullet limit is a transport limit, not a visibility limit: the full report may contain more than ten Medium/Low findings when no named blocker exists, and the parent MUST read it when synthesizing or deduplicating. The parent MUST reject a stale, duplicate, or superseded Attempt ID and MUST accept the current attempt before advancing a dependent step. Read-only leaves write repair proposals/reports only; they do not edit source, generated carriers, or user files.

Context budget — the return payload is a SUMMARY, not a transcript: no raw file contents / full diffs / verbatim logs inline, no re-pasted source. Everything beyond the envelope lives in the incrementally-written report. A sub-agent that would exceed the summary shape MUST persist the detail and return only the pointer; bounded transport must never become bounded visibility.

[BLOCKING] Capture a tech-agnostic UI/UX intent layer in every UI-bearing spec — a reader must be able to visualize how the feature works without naming any technology. When the feature has a user interface, the spec MUST ATTENTION carry an interaction-surface section so the application — not just its API — can be rebuilt on any stack:

1. View Inventory — list each view/screen by its UX ROLE and purpose (e.g. "list of items", "item editor", "confirmation step") and what information it presents. Describe by role, never by an implementation name.
2. Navigation Map — how a user moves between views: entry points, transitions, and exits. Trace how this surface connects to neighboring features already in the system.
3. Key observable UI States — the distinct states a user can observe per view (empty, loading, populated, error, success, permission-denied, etc.) — described as what the user perceives, not how it is rendered.
4. Per-story interaction flow — for each user story, the step-by-step click/action path from intent to outcome, cross-referenced to the logical IDs the spec already owns (US-/OP-/BR-).
5. Couple to the companion design artifact — keep deep visual fidelity (layout, tokens, pixel detail) OUT of the spec; it lives in the linked design-spec/mockup. Record that companion's path in the spec frontmatter so the spec stays the navigable hub.

M1-clean (NON-NEGOTIABLE): the prose names ZERO frameworks, routes/URLs, CSS, or component-class names — only roles, information, states, and flows. Technology detail belongs in the companion design artifact, never here.

Skip ONLY when the feature is backend-only (no UI) — state that reason explicitly in the section.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.

• MANDATORY Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested.
• MANDATORY Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use [N.M] /skill-name — phase prefixes and one-in_progress discipline.

• MANDATORY For UI-bearing specs, author/maintain the tech-agnostic interaction-surface layer (View Inventory + Navigation Map + observable UI States + per-story US-/OP-/BR--traced flow); keep deep visual fidelity in the linked design-spec/mockup recorded in frontmatter; name ZERO frameworks/routes/CSS/component classes; skip ONLY for backend-only features with a stated reason.

Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch — Plan parallelism the moment a task breakdown exists, BEFORE executing it — running provably independent tasks sequentially wastes wall-clock. Applies to every multi-step job: workflow steps, planning, batch updates, investigation, research, scans, reviews, doc sync. Plan execution is metadata-gated, NEVER default-parallel — fan-out follows ONLY what the plan declares (PAR/SEQ tags + per-phase write set); an untagged plan runs sequentially — why: a derived write set cannot see cascade or generated writes.

1. Tag every task PAR or SEQ. PAR = inputs exclude every pending task's output AND write set disjoint from every other PAR. Else SEQ — MUST ATTENTION name the dependency forcing it.
2. Group PAR into waves. No edge between members. Two writers of one file NEVER share a wave. Read-only work (search, investigation, review, research) parallelizes freely.
3. Declare before dispatch: Parallel plan: wave 1 = [...] · wave 2 = [...] · SEQ = [...] (reason).
4. Spawn each wave in ONE message — every Agent call in one response, NEVER dripped per turn. Route each task to its specialist (.claude/skills/shared/sub-agent-selection-guide.md); NEVER code-reviewer as catch-all.
5. Brief each sub-agent self-contained: goal · scope + owned files · reference docs · return contract (summary + Full report: path, per SYNC:subagent-return-contract) · incremental persistence to plans/reports/ (per SYNC:incremental-persistence).
6. Barrier per wave. Advance ONLY after EVERY member returns (a skipped conditional counts as returned). Merge, mark each task completed/skipped, THEN dispatch the next wave. Mutating steps wait for the barrier.
7. One level deep. A dispatched sub-agent executes its own brief; further fan-out stays the orchestrator's job unless that agent's .claude/agents/*.md definition authorizes it.

NEVER parallelize: tasks sharing a write target · a task consuming a pending task's output · trivial single-file work (dispatch overhead > gain) · an order a skill or workflow explicitly fixes · gates awaiting user approval.

Blocked until: MUST ATTENTION every task tagged PAR/SEQ with a named reason per SEQ · waves declared + write-set disjointness checked · each wave spawned in ONE message · barrier honored before the next wave.

• MANDATORY After planning tasks, tag each PAR/SEQ and spawn every PAR wave as parallel sub-agents in ONE message — default parallel for workflows, batch updates, investigation, research, reviews; plan execution fans out ONLY on what the plan declares.
• MANDATORY Disjoint write sets per wave · all-return barrier before the next wave · specialist routing · sub-agents NEVER fan out further unless their own agent definition authorizes it.

Project Protocol Overlay — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the Target column of the project's skill-protocol index (docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md by default; a referenceDocs entry in docs/project-config.json overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > *. That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill. Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: .claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md.

Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

MUST ATTENTION resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > *, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at <protocols-dir>/<Name>.md; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Convert a raw idea/vision/problem into one reviewed, docs-synced, provisional, tech-free 8-section Feature Spec with §8 planned TCs and conditional large-idea decomposition; stop there, never create a PBI backlog or implicit roadmap. Chain workflow-spec-to-pbi/workflow-idea-to-pbi as appropriate; use workflow-code-to-spec only after implementation exists. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Main steps: /web-research → /deep-research → /brainstorm → /spec-discovery → conditional /scenario → /domain-analysis → /why-review → /idea → /spec [mode=draft] → /spec [mode=tests] → /artifact-review --type=spec-tests → /artifact-review → conditional /design-spec → /spec-clarify → /why-review → /docs-update → /feature-presentation → /workflow-end → /watzup; NEVER create a backlog or implicit roadmap here.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries; each is a signpost to its canonical body above):

• AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.

• Nested Task Creation: expand child phases and link parent when nested; one in-progress.

• Critical Thinking: trace every claim, confidence >80% to act, never present guess as fact.

• Incremental Persistence: write findings to plans/reports/ per file — never hold in memory.

• Sub-Agent Return Contract: return summary only (≤10 bullets) with Full report: path.

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting — one task per workflow step (per capability when multiple capabilities are in scope)

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION brainstorm converges on the capability to spec BEFORE the /idea step

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run the default /brainstorm mode for ordinary idea-to-spec framing; --mode=scope is reserved for an explicitly supplied roadmap scope brief and must never be used as an implicit roadmap writer

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION SPEC-DRIVEN ORDER — author the Feature Spec (/spec [mode=draft] → /spec [mode=tests]) and review it; this workflow STOPS at the reviewed spec

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION PROVISIONAL OUTPUT — §8 carries Evidence: TBD / Status: Planned and frontmatter provisional: true; reconcile against code later via workflow-code-to-spec

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER decompose into PBIs/stories/backlog here — chain workflow-spec-to-pbi for a backlog

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION why-review runs after domain-analysis — FAIL revisits framing, WARN requires user acknowledgment

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-select scope

• MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify the authored Feature Spec(s)

• Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch: Tag tasks PAR/SEQ, group PAR into disjoint-write-set waves, spawn each wave in ONE message, barrier before advancing.

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important. Anti-Rationalization: