Create Spec

Turn an accepted bug report, feature request, concept, or idea into an implementation-ready spec issue per the Spec Issues section of ISSUE_GUIDELINES.md. The spec is drafted locally, reviewed by Codex, and only posted to GitHub after user acceptance. The spec issue is the source of truth for implementation; test scenarios are its centerpiece.

Arguments

/create-spec <source>

• Issue number — a triaged user report (reads .ai/issue-<n>-*/triage.md if present) or an existing thin issue to be specced
• Description — a feature/fix idea from the user, specced from scratch
• Nothing — look for a concept.md or triage.md in the workflow folder matching the current branch

Instructions

1. Gather Input

• If an issue number: fetch it (mcp__github__get_issue), and read .ai/issue-<n>-*/triage.md and any existing analysis.md/concept.md
• If a description: use it directly; check mcp__github__search_issues for related or duplicate issues (open and closed) before speccing
• Create/reuse the workflow folder .ai/issue-<n>-<slug>/ or .ai/feature-<slug>/

2. Research the Codebase

Understand what the spec touches: current behavior, affected components, existing configuration options, prior art. Enough to write concrete expected behavior and test scenarios — not an implementation plan. Consult ARCHITECTURE.md and CONFIGURATION.md as needed.

3. Draft the Spec

Write .ai/<folder>/spec.md following the Spec Issues structure in ISSUE_GUIDELINES.md exactly (it will be posted as the issue body):

• Brief summary, Refs #<n> to the originating report if one exists
• Goal — what to achieve
• Expected Behavior — concrete: example commands, expected output, before/after
• Test Scenarios — the heart of the spec. Happy paths, error conditions, edge cases; each with setup, action, expected outcome, concrete enough to become a test without guessing
• Out of Scope — deliberate exclusions
• Technical Notes — only what removes ambiguity

The spec stays at concept level: what to achieve and what changes. How to implement it belongs to the implementation phase.

Breakdown: if the work can't land as one reviewable PR, split into sub-specs — each a complete spec of its own (goal, behavior, test scenarios), independently implementable. Draft them as spec-<part-slug>.md files; the main spec keeps the overall goal and a Breakdown task list.

4. Codex Gate

Run a Codex gate per ../_shared/CODEX_GATE.md:

• Artifact: the spec draft(s)
• Task for Codex: find missing test scenarios, ambiguous expected behavior, contradictions with the originating report, and scope creep. Is this a readable concept a maintainer can verify and accept?
• Source of truth: the originating issue/triage/concept content
• Guidelines: ISSUE_GUIDELINES.md (Spec Issues section)

Evaluate per the convention — apply high-confidence findings, reject over-engineering, when in doubt leave it out. Log all verdicts to .ai/<folder>/codex-spec.md.

5. Acceptance Gate

Present to the user:

• The full spec draft (and sub-specs if any)
• The Codex gate summary (applied/rejected counts, log path)
• Open questions, if any — genuine design decisions surfaced by drafting or the Codex gate

Wait for acceptance. The user may edit, answer open questions, or reject. Iterate until accepted.

6. Post to GitHub

After acceptance, verify spec.md and any comment body against the posting checklist, then:

1. Create the spec issue via mcp__github__create_issue: title per ISSUE_GUIDELINES.md (imperative, specific), body from spec.md, labels: spec plus bug or enhancement
2. For breakdowns: create the sub-specs first, then the parent spec with the Breakdown task list referencing their numbers, and attach each sub-spec as a native sub-issue of the parent spec (same mechanics as step 3)
3. Link the spec to the originating user report, if any — keep the report open:
   • The spec body already carries Refs #<n>
   • Attach the spec as a native GitHub sub-issue of the report (report is the parent, spec is the child):

     SPEC_ID=$(gh api repos/gittower/git-flow-next/issues/<spec#> --jq '.id')
     gh api repos/gittower/git-flow-next/issues/<report#>/sub_issues \
       -F sub_issue_id="$SPEC_ID"
     

     sub_issue_id is the report child's REST database id, not the issue number — fetch it as shown.
   • Comment on the user report via mcp__github__add_issue_comment, addressing the reporter: the request is accepted and now specced in the spec issue (link it, note it's attached as a sub-issue); the report stays open and is the place to follow progress.
   • Leave the report open. It closes when the spec ships: the fix PR carries Resolves #<spec> (closing the spec), after which you close the report with a short "shipped in <version>" note. Both end up closed once the work lands.

7. Report

• Spec issue URL(s)
• Next step: implementation via /resolve-issue <spec-number> (or the manual chain starting with /analyze-issue)