Cpmspec

Requirements & Architecture Specification

Build a structured spec through facilitated conversation. Each section uses AskUserQuestion to gate progression — never dump everything at once.

Input

Check for input in this order:

1. If $ARGUMENTS references a file path, read that file as the starting context.
2. If $ARGUMENTS contains a description, use that as the starting context.
3. If neither, look for product briefs first, then problem briefs: a. Glob docs/briefs/[0-9]*-brief-*.md to find product briefs. If found, present them with AskUserQuestion — show each brief's title and date. Product briefs are the preferred input since they already contain vision, value propositions, and key features. b. If no product briefs, look for the most recent docs/plans/[0-9]*-plan-*.md file and ask the user if they want to use it.
4. If no briefs exist, ask the user to describe what they want to build.

ADR Discovery (Startup)

After resolving the input source and before starting Section 1, discover existing Architecture Decision Records:

1. Glob docs/architecture/[0-9]*-adr-*.md. If no files found or directory doesn't exist, skip silently — the spec will facilitate architecture decisions from scratch in Section 4.
2. If ADRs exist, read each one and present a summary to the user: "Found {N} existing ADRs: {titles}. I'll reference these during architecture decisions (Section 4) and only facilitate new decisions for gaps."
3. Store the ADR paths and summaries for use in Section 4.

Graceful degradation: If ADRs don't exist, Section 4 works as before — facilitating architecture decisions from scratch. The spec skill must work without cpm:architect having been run.

Process

Work through these sections one at a time. Use AskUserQuestion for every gate.

State tracking: Before starting Section 1, create the progress file (see State Management below). Each section below ends with a mandatory progress file update — do not skip it. After saving the final spec, delete the file.

Retro Check (Startup)

Before beginning Section 1, check for recent retro files using Glob: docs/retros/[0-9]*-retro-*.md. If one or more retro files exist:

1. Read the most recent retro file.
2. Present a brief summary of its key recommendations to the user.
3. Use AskUserQuestion to ask: "A recent retro has recommendations that may be relevant. Incorporate as additional context?"
   • Yes, incorporate — Treat the retro's recommendations as additional context throughout the spec sections (especially functional requirements and scope)
   • No, skip — Proceed normally without retro context

If no retro files exist, skip this check silently and proceed to the Library Check.

Roster Loading (Startup)

Follow the shared Roster Loading procedure (from the CPM Shared Skill Conventions loaded at session start). The roster is needed for Perspectives in Sections 4 and 5.

Library Check (Startup)

Follow the shared Library Check procedure with scope keyword spec. Deep-read selectively during spec sections — especially architecture decisions (Section 4) where architecture docs and coding standards directly inform choices, and scope boundaries (Section 5) where existing constraints may affect what's feasible.

Template Hint (Startup)

After startup checks and before Section 1, display:

Output format is fixed (used by downstream skills). Run /cpm:templates preview spec to see the format.

Section 1: Problem Recap

Briefly summarise the problem from the input (brief or description). Confirm understanding with the user. If starting from a brief, this should be quick — just verify nothing has changed.

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 1 summary before continuing.

Section 2: Functional Requirements

Facilitate conversation about what the system must do. Use MoSCoW prioritisation:

• Must have: Core functionality without which the system fails
• Should have: Important but the system works without them
• Could have: Nice-to-haves if time allows
• Won't have: Explicitly out of scope for this iteration

Present a draft list and refine with the user. Don't try to capture everything at once — iterate.

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 2 summary before continuing.

Section 3: Non-Functional Requirements

Only cover what's relevant to this project. Skip anything that doesn't apply.

Areas to consider:

• Performance (response times, throughput)
• Security (auth, data protection, access control)
• Scalability (expected load, growth)
• Reliability (uptime, error handling, data integrity)
• Usability (accessibility, device support)

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 3 summary before continuing.

Section 4: Architecture Decisions

If ADRs were discovered during the ADR Discovery startup check, this section references them rather than doing architecture from scratch.

When ADRs exist: Present the existing ADRs as context for the spec. For each ADR, summarise the decision, rationale, and consequences. Ask the user if the existing decisions still hold for this spec's scope. Then identify any gaps — architecture areas needed for this spec that aren't covered by existing ADRs. Only facilitate new decisions for gaps.

When no ADRs exist: Facilitate architecture decisions from scratch, as before. For each decision, capture:

• What was chosen
• Why (brief rationale)
• What alternatives were considered

If there's an existing codebase, explore it first with Read, Glob, and Grep to understand existing patterns and constraints before proposing architecture.

Areas to cover as relevant:

• Tech stack / framework choices
• Data storage approach
• Key integrations
• Deployment model
• Major structural patterns

Perspectives: Before presenting each major architecture decision to the user, follow the shared Perspectives procedure. Select 2-3 agents from the loaded roster whose expertise is relevant — e.g. the Software Architect on structural trade-offs, the Senior Developer on implementation cost, the DevOps Engineer on deployment concerns, or the QA Engineer on testability. This surfaces trade-offs the user should consider before deciding.

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 4 summary before continuing.

Section 5: Scope Boundary

Consolidate from the conversation:

• What's in scope for this iteration
• What's explicitly out of scope
• What's deferred to future iterations

Perspectives: Before finalising scope, follow the shared Perspectives procedure. Select 2-3 agents from the loaded roster whose expertise is relevant — e.g. the Product Manager on keeping scope tight for delivery, the Software Architect on foundational work, or the Senior Developer on dependencies that force certain items in.

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 5 summary before continuing.

Section 6: Testing Strategy

Outline how the system will be verified. This section bridges the spec and implementation by making testability explicit — not just what to test, but how each requirement will be verified.

Step 6a: Define Tag Vocabulary

Present the test approach tag vocabulary to the user:

• [unit] — Verified by unit tests targeting individual components in isolation
• [integration] — Verified by integration tests that exercise boundaries between components (API contracts, event flows, data layer interactions)
• [feature] — Verified by feature/end-to-end tests that exercise complete user-facing workflows
• [manual] — Verified by manual inspection, observation, or user confirmation (no automated test)
• [tdd] — Workflow mode: task follows a red-green-refactor loop. Composable with any level tag above (e.g. [tdd] [unit], [tdd] [integration]). Orthogonal — describes how to work, not what kind of test. When present, cpm:do writes a failing test first, then implements to pass it, then refactors. [tdd] without a level tag defaults to [tdd] [unit].

The first four tags describe test level — what kind of verification proves the criterion. [tdd] describes workflow mode — how the implementation should proceed. These are orthogonal dimensions: a criterion can carry both (e.g. [tdd] [unit]).

These tags will flow downstream: cpm:epics propagates them onto story acceptance criteria, and cpm:do uses them to determine verification approach (run tests vs. self-assess) and workflow mode (standard post-implementation vs. TDD red-green-refactor). Use AskUserQuestion to confirm the vocabulary or let the user adjust it for their project.

Graceful fallback: If the user prefers not to tag criteria (e.g. for a small project where tagging adds ceremony without value), skip tag assignment and proceed with the current lightweight behaviour — acceptance criteria mapping without tags. The rest of Section 6 still runs.

Step 6b: Tag Acceptance Criteria

For each must-have functional requirement from Section 2, review its acceptance criteria and assign a test approach tag:

1. Present the requirement and its criteria.
2. Propose a tag for each criterion based on its nature — boundary-crossing behaviour suggests [integration], isolated logic suggests [unit], user-visible workflow suggests [feature], and non-automatable checks suggest [manual].
3. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm or adjust the proposed tags.
4. Flag incomplete criteria: Any acceptance criterion that cannot be assigned a tag because it's too vague or subjective to verify should be flagged. Present the flagged criteria and ask the user to refine them until they're testable.

Work through requirements one at a time — don't dump all tags at once.

Step 6c: Integration Boundaries

If ADRs were discovered, identify the key integration boundaries between architectural components (e.g. API contracts, event schemas, data flows between services). These become the seams where integration tests should focus. If no ADRs exist, derive boundaries from the architecture decisions made in Section 4.

Present the integration boundaries to the user and refine.

Step 6d: Test Infrastructure

Assess whether the project needs any testing infrastructure that doesn't already exist:

• Test frameworks (e.g. PHPUnit, Pest, Jest, pytest)
• Test databases or fixtures
• CI configuration for running tests
• Mock/stub libraries for external services

If infrastructure is needed, capture it — these become stories in cpm:epics. If the project already has adequate test infrastructure, note that and move on. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm.

Step 6e: Present and Refine

Present the complete testing strategy to the user: tagged criteria, integration boundaries, and infrastructure needs. Refine with AskUserQuestion before proceeding.

Update progress file now — write the full .cpm-progress-{session_id}.md with Section 6 summary (including tag assignments per requirement and infrastructure needs) before continuing.

Section 7: Review

Present the complete spec to the user for review. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm or request changes.

Output

Save the spec to docs/specifications/{nn}-spec-{slug}.md in the current project.

• {nn} is assigned by the shared Numbering procedure (from the CPM Shared Skill Conventions loaded at session start).
• {slug} matches the brief slug if one was used as input, or is derived from the project name.

Create the docs/specifications/ directory if it doesn't exist.

Use this format:

# Spec: {Title}

**Date**: {today's date}
**Brief**: {link to brief if applicable}

## Problem Summary
{One-paragraph recap}

## Functional Requirements

### Must Have
- {requirement}

### Should Have
- {requirement}

### Could Have
- {requirement}

### Won't Have (this iteration)
- {item}

## Non-Functional Requirements
{Only sections that are relevant}

## Architecture Decisions

### {Decision Title}
**Choice**: {what was chosen}
**Rationale**: {why}
**Alternatives considered**: {what else was evaluated}

## Scope

### In Scope
- {item}

### Out of Scope
- {item}

### Deferred
- {item}

## Testing Strategy

### Tag Vocabulary
Test approach tags used in this spec:
- `[unit]` — Unit tests targeting individual components in isolation
- `[integration]` — Integration tests exercising boundaries between components
- `[feature]` — Feature/end-to-end tests exercising complete user-facing workflows
- `[manual]` — Manual inspection, observation, or user confirmation
- `[tdd]` — Workflow mode: task follows red-green-refactor loop. Composable with any level tag (e.g. `[tdd] [unit]`). Orthogonal — describes how to work, not what kind of test.

### Acceptance Criteria Coverage

| Requirement | Acceptance Criterion | Test Approach |
|---|---|---|
| {Requirement label} | {Criterion text} | {[tag]} |
| {Requirement label} | {Criterion text} | {[tag]} |

{Each must-have requirement has at least one testable criterion with a tag. Criteria flagged during Section 6b as vague should be refined before inclusion here.}

### Integration Boundaries
{Key integration points between architectural components, derived from ADRs if available}

### Test Infrastructure
{Testing infrastructure the project needs — frameworks, test databases, fixtures, CI configuration, mock libraries. "None required" if the project already has adequate infrastructure. Items listed here become stories in `cpm:epics`.}

### Unit Testing
Unit testing of individual components is handled at the `cpm:do` task level — each story's acceptance criteria drive test coverage during implementation.

After saving, suggest next steps:

• /cpm:epics to break the spec into epic documents with stories and tasks (recommended)
• /cpm:architect to explore architecture first, if no ADRs exist yet and the system has non-trivial architectural decisions
• /plan (native plan mode) if the scope is small enough to skip planning artifacts entirely

State Management

Maintain docs/plans/.cpm-progress-{session_id}.md throughout the session for compaction resilience. This allows seamless continuation if context compaction fires mid-conversation.

Path resolution: All paths in this skill are relative to the current Claude Code session's working directory. When calling Write, Glob, Read, or any file tool, construct the absolute path by prepending the session's primary working directory. Never write to a different project's directory or reuse paths from other sessions.

Session ID: The {session_id} in the filename comes from CPM_SESSION_ID — a unique identifier for the current Claude Code session, injected into context by the CPM hooks on startup and after compaction. Use this value verbatim when constructing the progress file path. If CPM_SESSION_ID is not present in context (e.g. hooks not installed), fall back to .cpm-progress.md (no session suffix) for backwards compatibility.

Resume adoption: When a session is resumed (--resume) or context is cleared (/clear), CPM_SESSION_ID changes to a new value while the old progress file remains on disk. The hooks inject all existing progress files into context — if one matches this skill's **Skill**: field but has a different session ID in its filename, adopt it:

1. Read the old file's contents (already visible in context from hook injection).
2. Write a new file at docs/plans/.cpm-progress-{current_session_id}.md with the same contents.
3. After the Write confirms success, delete the old file: rm docs/plans/.cpm-progress-{old_session_id}.md. Do not attempt adoption if CPM_SESSION_ID is absent from context — the fallback path handles that case.

Create the file before starting Section 1 (ensure docs/plans/ exists). Update it after each section completes. Delete it only after the final spec has been saved and confirmed written — never before. If compaction fires between deletion and a pending write, all session state is lost.

Also delete docs/plans/.cpm-compact-summary-{session_id}.md if it exists — this companion file is written by the PostCompact hook and should be cleaned up alongside the progress file.

Use the Write tool to write the full file each time (not Edit — the file is replaced wholesale). Format:

# CPM Session State

**Skill**: cpm:spec
**Section**: {N} of 7 — {Section Name}
**Output target**: docs/specifications/{nn}-spec-{slug}.md
**Input source**: {path to brief or description used as input}

## Completed Sections

### Section 1: Problem Recap
{Concise summary — confirmed problem statement, any changes from brief}

### Section 2: Functional Requirements
{Concise summary — key must-haves, should-haves, won't-haves decided}

{...continue for each completed section...}

### Section 6: Testing Strategy
{Tag vocabulary confirmed or skipped. Per-requirement tag assignments:
- Requirement 1: [tag] criterion summary, [tag] criterion summary
- Requirement 2: [tag] criterion summary
...
Integration boundaries identified. Test infrastructure needs: {list or "none"}.}

## Next Action
{What to ask or do next in the facilitation}

The "Completed Sections" section grows as sections complete. Each summary should capture the key decisions, requirements, and priorities in enough detail for seamless continuation — not a transcript, but enough that no question needs to be re-asked.

The "Next Action" field tells the post-compaction context exactly where to pick up.

Guidelines

• Facilitate, don't prescribe. Present options and trade-offs. Let the user decide.
• Build on existing context. If there's a brief or existing code, use it. Don't re-ask what's already known.
• Stay practical. Skip sections that don't add value for the project's scale.
• One section at a time. Complete each before moving on.
• Match depth to complexity. A small feature needs a lean spec. A new product needs more detail.

Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.