spek-new

Imported from tuna-os/tunaOS (.claude/skills/spek-new/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add tuna-os/tunaOS --skill spek-new. Copyright stays with the author.

Version check first. Before running any other command, run spektacular version check.

• On status: "match", continue with the skill and produce no version-related output.
• On "mismatch", "missing" or "upgrade_needed", the project's settings or installed Spektacular files are out of date: relay the response's action message to the user, ask them to run spektacular migrate (they can preview it with spektacular migrate --dry-run), and wait for their decision before continuing.
• On "unsupported_format", relay the action message: the project was written by a newer Spektacular, which the user must install before continuing.
• Never run migrate or init, and never modify installed files yourself. Upgrading is always an explicit, user-initiated action.

STOP. Read this before running any command below. A single successful CLI call — including the very first spec new — is NOT task completion. It is not a milestone to report back to the user. It is one step out of many in a workflow that you must keep driving, turn after turn, without stopping, until the CLI itself tells you the workflow is finished. If you find yourself about to say "successfully completed" or summarize results after calling spec new or spec goto even once, you are wrong — go back and read the instruction field you just received, do what it says, and call goto again.

What this skill does

This skill drives a multi-step interactive workflow that produces a complete specification file at the spec_path returned by the CLI. The workflow is owned by the spektacular CLI, not by you — the CLI is the state machine and you are the executor.

On each turn, the CLI returns JSON containing an instruction field. That instruction describes exactly one step (e.g. overview, requirements, acceptance criteria, …). You must:

1. Read the instruction carefully.
2. Perform the step — usually this means interviewing the user and capturing their answers. Some steps tell you to commit the gathered content to the spec file.
3. When the step is complete, run the goto command named at the bottom of the instruction to advance the state machine.
4. Read the next instruction from the new JSON response and repeat.

This is a loop. Do not stop after the first step. Keep looping — step → goto → next instruction → step — until a returned instruction tells you the workflow is finished. Only then should you report completion to the user.

Concretely: do not stop after spec new. That command only starts the workflow — it returns the first instruction (the interview step), not a finished spec. Seeing a clean JSON response with no error is not a signal to stop; it is the signal to keep going. Reporting success, summarizing "spec initialized," or handing control back to the user at this point is the single most common way this skill is executed incorrectly — do not do it.

The interview step

Before any section is drafted, the workflow opens with an interview step: a single open-ended conversation, not a fixed script. You ask adaptive questions about what's being built, who it's for, and what constraints apply, following up on what the user has already said rather than working through a predetermined list. You have the project's full registered-repo roster available during this step — if the project spans more than one repo and the feature reads as focused on one of them, ask whether it also needs changes in another registered repo, shaped by what that other repo actually is (for example, a documentation repo invites asking whether docs need updating). Stop the interview once further questions wouldn't materially change the draft, not once every conceivable detail has been asked about — this should take a small number of exchanges, not an exhaustive back-and-forth. Save your synthesized understanding (not a transcript) to .spektacular/work/<spec_name>/interview.md with your own Write tool before advancing; every later section step drafts from this file and presents its draft back for confirmation, rather than asking its own scripted question from a blank prompt. A session interrupted mid-interview resumes on the interview step itself — read back .spektacular/work/<spec_name>/interview.md (if partially written) and .spektacular/working-context.md before continuing the conversation.

Reading and writing the spec file

The CLI owns the spec file. All spec file access goes through spektacular spec file:

• spektacular spec file read <name>.md — read a spec file from the spec store.
• spektacular spec file write <name>.md --from <source-path> — write a spec file into the spec store from a source file on disk. Stage the body under .spektacular/tmp/ first, then rm the scratch file after a successful write.
• spektacular spec file list — list spec files in the spec store.

Path arguments are spec file names; spec file resolves them against the configured spec directory itself.

Design documents a spec may reference

A spec does not have to absorb a worked design. Where the conversation settles an API's shape, a user-facing flow, a data format, or a worked example of one, that detail can live in a design document in one of the project's declared design sources, with the spec carrying a reference to it instead of its content. The technical-approach step makes that offer at the point the detail would otherwise be compressed to a one-line steer; it is always an offer, and nothing is written without the user's explicit agreement.

A design does not have to already exist to be captured. Where it has been settled in conversation but never written down, the spek-design skill runs a guided interview and writes the document from it; where the user already has the document, it is stored exactly as supplied.

Design documents are reached through the CLI, never by reading files directly:

• spektacular design sources — the design sources this project declares, with their locations.
• spektacular design list — the design documents in them.
• spektacular design write --data '{"source":"<name>","path":"<path>"}' --from <file> — store a design document Spektacular did not author, byte for byte, adding no frontmatter to it and reformatting nothing.
• spektacular design author --data '{"source":"<name>","path":"<path>"}' --from <file> — store a design Spektacular wrote with the user, stamping the same lifecycle record every spec and plan carries. Optionally --spec <spec> to record which spec's conversation produced it, and --document-status <draft|final|superseded|archived>. Rewriting an authored design this way keeps its original capture date and the specs already referencing it.
• spektacular design ref add --data '{"spec":"<spec>","source":"<name>","path":"<path>"}' — record the reference on the spec. A reference naming a source the project has not declared is refused and nothing is recorded.

Working files vs. the store document

While you gather each section, write that section's agreed content directly to its own git-tracked working file under .spektacular/work/<spec_name>/<section>.md using your own Write tool. These working files are not store documents — writing them directly with Write is correct and expected, and is the one deliberate exception to the "never use Write/Edit" rule above. That rule protects only the final assembled spec, which is written solely through spektacular spec file write. The per-section working files are scratch-but-durable: the verification step reads them back to assemble the final spec, and then the working directory is removed once the store write succeeds.

.spektacular/working-context.md has a narrower role: it holds only your cross-cutting learnings and the answers the user gave to your questions — never a copy of section content (that lives in the per-section working files). On resume, read back both the section working files in .spektacular/work/<spec_name>/ and .spektacular/working-context.md, so you continue from the interrupted step without re-asking for sections already completed.

How to start

First, check whether a workflow is already in progress — before asking the user for a spec name. Run the new command with no --data:

spektacular spec new

This reads the project's single workflow state and changes nothing on disk. One of two things comes back:

• A resume report — a JSON object with "resumable": true plus the in-progress workflow's kind, name, and current_step, and an instruction field. A workflow was interrupted and is still in progress. Do not prompt for a spec name — the in-progress workflow already has one. Handle it under "Resuming an in-progress workflow" below. (It may be a different kind — a plan or implement run left open.)
• An error that a name is required — no workflow is in progress, so there is nothing to resume. Proceed to "Starting a new spec" below.

Starting a new spec

Only once you know there is no workflow to resume:

Ask the user for a spec name now. If the user needs to see what names already exist to avoid collisions, run spektacular spec file list — do not use ls, find, or the Read tool against .spektacular/specs/; the CLI's list is the source of truth for what counts as a spec. Then run:

spektacular spec new --data '{"name": "<spec_name>"}'

Only when spec.id_method is external (check .spektacular/config.yaml), an external system's identifier must be supplied with:

spektacular spec new --data '{"name": "<spec_name>", "id": "<external_id>"}'

Under timestamp or counter (the default is timestamp), never pass id — not even when the spec comes from a GitHub issue or ticket with its own number. The CLI mints the ID itself and rejects an explicit one, because a name without the configured ID prefix would be refused by every later plan and changelog write.

The CLI may normalize and prefix the requested name. Always use the returned spec_name and spec_path as the source of truth for follow-up workflows.

The command creates the spec file and state file automatically and returns the first instruction. From that point on, follow the loop above: do what the instruction says, then call spektacular spec goto --data '{"step":"<next_step>"}' to get the next one. Do not invent step names — every instruction tells you the exact goto command to run next.

If the project has uncommitted changes

When the project sets auto_commit to workflow or full, the named spec new above may instead return an uncommitted-changes report (code: uncommitted_changes) and change nothing on disk. Its message names every registered repository holding uncommitted work, and resource lists their names.

This is a question for the user, not a decision for you. Tell them which repositories have uncommitted changes and ask whether to git commit that work before the spec workflow starts. Then re-run the same command with their answer:

To commit the existing changes first:

spektacular spec new --data '{"name": "<spec_name>", "commit_existing": true}'

To start without committing them:

spektacular spec new --data '{"name": "<spec_name>", "commit_existing": false}'

• true commits the existing changes first, in their own commit whose message says they are the user's work from before the workflow. The workflow then starts on a clean tree.
• false starts the workflow without committing, so the workflow's own automatic commits will include that work alongside the agent's.

Never choose for the user, and never guess from context which they would want — the whole point of the report is that their uncommitted work is about to be swept into a commit they did not make. If the commit fails (code: auto_commit_failed), tell them which repository failed and the reason git gave; the workflow has not started.

Resuming an in-progress workflow

When the in-progress check above returns a resume report:

First check the report's kind. If it is not spec, a different workflow (a plan or implement run) is in progress — you cannot resume it from the spec skill, and the CLI will refuse to. Do not run a spec goto. Instead follow the report's instruction: tell the user a <kind> workflow is in progress and let them choose — continue it with that workflow's skill (spektacular <kind> goto), or discard it and start the spec with spektacular spec new --force. Only proceed with the steps below when the report's kind is spec.

1. Ask the user whether to resume the in-progress spec or start a new one. (The report's instruction field restates both options.)

2. To resume, first read back the previous session's work with your own file tools: the per-section working files under .spektacular/work/<name>/ (sections already completed) and .spektacular/working-context.md (learnings + the user's answers). Then run the resume command using the report's current_step:

   spektacular spec goto --data '{"step":"<current_step>"}'
   

3. To start fresh instead (discarding the in-progress workflow — it remains recoverable via git), re-run with --force and a name:

   spektacular spec new --force --data '{"name": "<spec_name>"}'