Create Specification File
Repository continuity composition
For repository-scoped work, compose maintain-repository-continuity in
Resume mode before selecting work. After an authorized repository change
passes domain validation, compose Refresh and Verify immediately before
presenting the pull request, and include the reconciled root CONTINUITY.md in
the same change. A policy-permitted no-change or exemption result must be
documented instead of fabricating an edit.
- Contribute: Requirements, boundaries, acceptance criteria, validation, and unresolved decisions
- Never claim: That specified work is implemented or open decisions are resolved without evidence
Purpose
Execute the reusable procedure governed by specfile.
Primary question:
What implementation contract is required, and how will conformance be validated?
Required Inputs
Resolve:
- governing specification and version
- current source or repository state
- scope and constraints
- upstream architecture or evidence
- output location
- validation expectations
- unresolved decisions
Missing evidence must remain visible.
Workflow
- gather source context and identify the problem
- separate facts, decisions, assumptions, and proposals
- define purpose, goals, and non-goals
- choose type and canonical ownership
- define requirements, architecture, interfaces, and dependencies
- organize implementation work into bounded phases
- define validation and acceptance criteria
- record risks, edge cases, and open questions
- validate against the specification standard
Output Contract
Primary output:
<artifact-id>.spec.md
Also report assumptions, evidence gaps, validation status, unresolved
questions, and downstream actions requiring separate authorization.
Constraints
- Follow the governing specification.
- Preserve provenance and uncertainty.
- Do not invent authority, evidence, or current behavior.
- Do not silently expand scope.
- Do not claim completion when required validation is missing.
- Keep proposed downstream work separate from authorized execution.
Completion Criteria
Staged Variant
A staged candidate at .staging/skills/spec-authoring/ covers similar
ground under the name spec-authoring. The canonical skill is named
create-specification-file and is governed by the specfile specification.
Issue 016 should compare the two and extract any unique workflow guidance,
template detail, or example material from the staged copy before retiring it.
Do not copy the staged file wholesale into canonical source.
1---2name: create-specification-file3description: Creates a new Aether specification file conforming to the specfile standard. Use when a project needs to define, structure, or validate an implementation contract and its acceptance criteria.4license: MIT5---67# Create Specification File89<!-- aether-continuity-disposition: reader-writer -->1011## Repository continuity composition1213For repository-scoped work, compose `maintain-repository-continuity` in14**Resume** mode before selecting work. After an authorized repository change15passes domain validation, compose **Refresh** and **Verify** immediately before16presenting the pull request, and include the reconciled root `CONTINUITY.md` in17the same change. A policy-permitted no-change or exemption result must be18documented instead of fabricating an edit.1920- **Contribute:** Requirements, boundaries, acceptance criteria, validation, and unresolved decisions21- **Never claim:** That specified work is implemented or open decisions are resolved without evidence2223## Purpose2425Execute the reusable procedure governed by `specfile`.2627Primary question:2829> What implementation contract is required, and how will conformance be validated?3031## Required Inputs3233Resolve:3435- governing specification and version36- current source or repository state37- scope and constraints38- upstream architecture or evidence39- output location40- validation expectations41- unresolved decisions4243Missing evidence must remain visible.4445## Workflow46471. gather source context and identify the problem482. separate facts, decisions, assumptions, and proposals493. define purpose, goals, and non-goals504. choose type and canonical ownership515. define requirements, architecture, interfaces, and dependencies526. organize implementation work into bounded phases537. define validation and acceptance criteria548. record risks, edge cases, and open questions559. validate against the specification standard5657## Output Contract5859Primary output:6061 <artifact-id>.spec.md6263Also report assumptions, evidence gaps, validation status, unresolved64questions, and downstream actions requiring separate authorization.6566## Constraints6768- Follow the governing specification.69- Preserve provenance and uncertainty.70- Do not invent authority, evidence, or current behavior.71- Do not silently expand scope.72- Do not claim completion when required validation is missing.73- Keep proposed downstream work separate from authorized execution.7475## Completion Criteria7677- [ ] Governing specification is resolved.78- [ ] Scope and constraints are explicit.79- [ ] Required evidence was inspected.80- [ ] The primary output was created.81- [ ] Validation was executed or its absence documented.82- [ ] Open questions and authorization needs are visible.8384## Staged Variant8586A staged candidate at `.staging/skills/spec-authoring/` covers similar87ground under the name `spec-authoring`. The canonical skill is named88`create-specification-file` and is governed by the `specfile` specification.8990Issue 016 should compare the two and extract any unique workflow guidance,91template detail, or example material from the staged copy before retiring it.92Do not copy the staged file wholesale into canonical source.