Ss Spec New

Spec New

Draft a language-agnostic service/system specification — the kind a second team could re-implement from scratch in a different language.

When to use this skill

Use this when the artifact needs to:

• Define a contract that multiple implementations could conform to
• Survive porting (no language/framework details bleed into normative text)
• Make conformance auditable (reviewers can answer "does this implementation comply?" point by point)

If the user just wants a design doc, ADR, or PRD, suggest creating a simpler context document or PRD instead — those have lower ceremony.

The shape of a good spec

Symphony's SPEC.md is the reference. The 10 sections below are the simplified core. Drop sections that don't apply (e.g., omit the state-machine section for stateless components), but keep their order — readers learn the system top-down.

1. Header — title, status (Draft v1, Stable v2), one-sentence purpose
2. Normative language — RFC 2119 boilerplate + Implementation-defined
3. Problem statement & scope boundaries — what it solves; what's explicitly not its job
4. Goals / Non-goals — parallel bulleted lists
5. System overview — components + abstraction layers
6. Domain model — entities, fields, types, normalization rules
7. Configuration contract — schema, defaults, validation, dynamic reload
8. State machine & lifecycle — states, transition triggers (skip if stateless)
9. Failure model — failure classes → recovery behavior
10. Reference algorithms — language-agnostic pseudocode for non-obvious flows
11. Conformance checklist — REQUIRED vs RECOMMENDED, split by extension

Optional appendix: extensions (HTTP API, alternative transports, etc.). Each extension owns its own top-level config key and conformance section.

Procedure

Phase 1 — Decide if a spec is the right artifact

Before writing anything, confirm with the user:

• Will multiple teams or implementations need to conform to this?
• Is the system stable enough that an RFC-style document won't be obsolete in a week?
• Does someone need to audit conformance later?

If "no" to all three, recommend a lighter format (PRD, ADR, design doc) and stop.

Phase 2 — Gather raw material

Before drafting, extract from the user (or existing code/docs):

• Purpose: one sentence. "X is a Y that does Z."
• Boundaries: what's in scope, what's out. Symphony's example: "scheduler/runner and tracker reader; ticket writes are out of scope".
• Components: list the major moving parts and what each owns.
• External dependencies: trackers, agents, filesystems, APIs.
• Domain entities: nouns the system reasons about (Issue, Workspace, RunAttempt, etc.).
• Configuration surface: what knobs operators turn.
• State machine: if there's stateful orchestration, list states + transition triggers.
• Failure modes: ways things go wrong and how the system recovers.

If the user can't answer one of these, that section either gets omitted or marked Implementation-defined.

Phase 3 — Draft from the template

Copy references/TEMPLATE.md to the working directory (default name SPEC.md) and fill it in section by section. The template has comments <!-- ... --> explaining each section's intent — strip them once filled.

Phase 4 — Apply the rules

Walk the draft against the rules below before showing it to the user.

Writing rules

These are the rules that make Symphony's spec sharp. Apply them aggressively.

Use RFC 2119 keywords correctly

• MUST / MUST NOT — absolute requirement; non-conformant if violated
• SHOULD / SHOULD NOT — strong recommendation; valid reasons to deviate exist but must be understood
• MAY / OPTIONAL — purely permissive; either choice conforms

Don't use these words casually. If you write "the system MUST log errors", that becomes a conformance test. If logging is just a good idea, write "SHOULD" or rephrase.

Use "Implementation-defined" deliberately

When a real choice exists but you don't want to mandate one, write Implementation-defined and require the implementation to document its choice. Symphony does this for approval policy, sandboxing, and user-input handling. This keeps the spec portable without leaving behavior undefined.

Make scope boundaries explicit

Every spec needs a "what this is NOT" paragraph. Symphony's:

Symphony is a scheduler/runner and tracker reader. Ticket writes are typically performed by the coding agent.

This single sentence prevents endless scope-creep arguments later.

Every entity gets a field schema

For each domain entity, list fields with:

• name
• type (string, integer, list of strings, timestamp or null)
• nullability/optionality
• normalization rule (e.g., "labels normalized to lowercase")

If a field is derived, say from where (e.g., "workspace_key derived from issue.identifier by replacing [^A-Za-z0-9._-] with _").

Every config field gets: name, type, default, required-ness

- `polling.interval_ms` (integer)
  - Default: `30000`
  - Changes SHOULD be re-applied at runtime without restart.

If something is REQUIRED, say so on the field. If it has a default, give the default. If $VAR indirection is supported, mention it.

Every failure class gets a recovery behavior

Don't just list failures — pair each with what the system does. Symphony's pattern:

Tracker candidate-fetch failure: log and skip dispatch for this tick.
Reconciliation state-refresh failure: log and keep workers running.

Pseudocode is for non-obvious flows only

Reference algorithms are valuable when the order of operations matters (poll-tick sequence, retry handling, reconciliation). They are noise when the flow is "call this function, then return". Include 3–6 small pseudocode blocks max. Use text code blocks, not a real language.

Conformance checklist is the audit surface

Every MUST in the body should have a corresponding bullet in the conformance checklist. Split into:

• Core conformance — what every implementation must do
• Extension conformance — only required if the extension is implemented
• Integration profile — environment-dependent smoke tests (often skipped in CI)

If you can't write a yes/no test for a checklist item, the requirement is too vague — go fix it in the body.

Extensions are first-class but isolated

Optional features (HTTP server, alternative trackers) live in appendices. Each appendix:

• Owns a top-level config key (e.g., server.*, worker.*)
• States that core conformance does not require it
• Has its own mini-conformance section

This lets implementations stay small without making the spec lie about what's required.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Mixing prescription and description. The spec says what implementations must do, not what this implementation does. If you find yourself writing "the Python code uses asyncio", lift it to a normative requirement ("the runtime MUST process events concurrently") or move it to an implementation note.
• Burying requirements in prose. Numbered lists, bullets, and bold keywords make conformance auditable. Prose paragraphs hide MUSTs.
• Skipping the failure model. Specs that only describe the happy path produce implementations that disagree about error behavior. Always include Section 9.
• Letting examples become normative. If you show a JSON shape, mark it Suggested response shape: not Required response shape: unless the field set really is required.
• Versioning the spec implicitly. Put a Status: Draft v1 line at the top. When you make a breaking change, bump the version and note it.

Output

Default output path: SPEC.md in the user's working directory (or wherever they specify). After writing, point out:

• Which sections you filled vs. left as TODO or Implementation-defined
• The conformance checklist size — if it's under ~10 items the spec is probably too thin; if it's over 100 the spec is probably too prescriptive

Then offer to review the spec and stress-test it to find weak spots before it ships.