\"` results in:\n\n * [ ] Updated `spec.md` and/or `plan.md` only where needed.\n * [ ] Appended `tasks.md` items with `T###`, `[US#]`, optional `[P]`, and **exact file paths**.\n * [ ] A printed **Sync Impact Report** with absolute paths, task IDs, and any outstanding decisions.\n* [ ] Works with current **check‑prerequisites** discovery flow.\n* [ ] No branch changes, minimal diffs, structure preserved.\n\n---\n\n### Implementation sketch\n\n* Add `templates/commands/reconcile.md` (preliminary draft attached).\n* Keep edits **section‑precise**; avoid renumbering tasks.\n* Where wiring is missing, enforce an **integration test** task to prove end‑to‑end navigation.\n\n---\n\n### Risks & mitigations\n\n* **Over‑editing artifacts** → Mitigate via append‑only, section‑targeted diffs, and a hard limit on clarifications.\n* **Template vs. CLI confusion** → Clearly label as `templates` change; no executable changes.\n* **Task sprawl** → Require exact file paths and story‑phase placement to keep tasks actionable.\n\n---\n\n### Prior art / fit\n\nThis follows the project’s pattern of **small, additive templates** that improve the flow without touching the CLI. The command is composable and keeps the core loop fast.\n\n---\n\n### Willing to implement\n\nYes—happy to open the PR and iterate on feedback.\n\n---\n\n### Appendix — Example gap report ⇒ expected tasks\n\n> “Backend + tests for **Invoice Settings** exist; React screen scaffolded. Users can’t navigate to it. Need sidebar link + route. Success toasts must follow UX constitution.”\n\n**Expected new tasks (examples):**\n\n```\n- [ ] T045 [US2] Add route /invoices/settings in frontend/src/router/index.ts\n- [ ] T046 [US2] Add sidebar link to Invoice Settings in frontend/src/components/Sidebar.tsx\n- [ ] T047 [US2] Integration test: navigate to Invoice Settings (tests/integration/invoices_settings.spec.ts)\n```\n\n[reconcile.md](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/23166782/reconcile.md)",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1063/reactions",
"total_count": 20,
"+1": 20,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1062",
"id": 3557104214,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7UBRpW",
"number": 1062,
"title": "Documentation assumes prior knowledge of `uv` and its origin",
"user": {
"login": "MrHinsh",
"id": 5205575,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjUyMDU1NzU=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5205575?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/MrHinsh",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {
"0": {
"id": 9150267149,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACIWX_DQ",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/documentation",
"name": "documentation",
"color": "0075ca",
"default": true,
"description": "Improvements or additions to documentation"
}
},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {
"0": {
"login": "anchildress1",
"id": 6563688,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY1NjM2ODg=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6563688?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/anchildress1",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
}
},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 4,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T14:35:30Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-27T14:23:36Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": {
"login": "anchildress1",
"id": 6563688,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY1NjM2ODg=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6563688?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/anchildress1",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": {
"id": 70,
"node_id": "IT_kwDNJr9G",
"name": "Task",
"description": "A specific piece of work",
"color": "yellow",
"created_at": "2023-10-09T13:30:49Z",
"updated_at": "2024-05-30T18:20:40Z",
"is_enabled": true
},
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "The installation instructions currently show only:\n\n```\nuv tool install specify-cli --from git+https://github.com/github/spec-kit.git\n```\n\nThe documentation assumes that users already know this is a Python-based implementation and that `uv` is installed. This is a false assumption and significantly limits accessibility.\n\nSince `uv` is a third-party tool developed by [[Astral](https://github.com/astral-sh/uv)](https://github.com/astral-sh/uv), and this is not mentioned anywhere, it seems that you expect potential users to just magically know this information. Please update the documentation to:\n\n* Explain that `uv` is a Python tool manager from Astral.\n* Include installation instructions or a link to [[uv’s documentation](https://docs.astral.sh/uv/getting-started/installation/)](https://docs.astral.sh/uv/getting-started/installation/).\n* Clarify that `uv` must be installed before running the command.\n\n### Suggested Fix\n\nAdd a short clarification under **“⚡ Get Started → 1. Install Specify CLI”**, explaining what `uv` is and how to install it.\nFor example:\n\n````markdown\n#### Prerequisite: Install uv\n\nThe following installation command uses **[uv](https://docs.astral.sh/uv/)** — a modern Python package and environment manager by Astral. \n`uv` is not included in any operating system and must be installed separately.\n\nYou can install it via:\n```bash\n# macOS / Linux\ncurl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh\n\n# Windows (PowerShell)\nirm https://astral.sh/uv/install.ps1 | iex\n````
\n\nEnsure you have **Python 3.11+** installed before running `uv`.\n\n````\n\nThen, continue with the existing installation section:\n\n```bash\nuv tool install specify-cli --from git+https://github.com/github/spec-kit.git\n````\n\n### Rationale\n\nThis small addition would:\n\n* Prevent confusion for non-Python developers.\n* Improve onboarding by clearly identifying the required tooling.\n* Acknowledge the dependency on Astral’s `uv`, giving proper attribution and context.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1062/reactions",
"total_count": 11,
"+1": 10,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 1,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1061",
"id": 3556846371,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7UASsj",
"number": 1061,
"title": "Bug: /specify.plan generates bash commands with Windows-style backslashes causing syntax errors",
"user": {
"login": "jpiquot",
"id": 6775094,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY3NzUwOTQ=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6775094?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/jpiquot",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T13:39:04Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-28T01:35:21Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Description\n\nWhen using `/specify.plan`, the AI generates bash commands with Windows-style path separators (backslashes `\\`) which causes syntax errors when executed in bash/shell environments.\n\n## Steps to Reproduce\n\n1. Use `/specify.plan` command on a Windows system\n2. AI attempts to find artifacts in a directory path\n3. Generated bash command uses Windows-style paths with backslashes\n4. Command fails with syntax errors\n\n## Expected Behavior\n\nThe AI should generate bash-compatible commands using:\n- Forward slashes (`/`) for path separators in bash commands\n- Proper escaping if Windows paths must be used\n- Or convert Windows paths to WSL/bash-compatible format\n\n## Actual Behavior\n\nThe AI generates commands like:\n```bash\nBash(ls -la \"D:\\...\\specs\\001-interface-manager\\\" | grep -E \"(data-model|quickstart|contracts)\")\n```\n\nWhich results in bash syntax errors:\n\n**Error 1:** \n```\n/usr/bin/bash: eval: line 1: syntax_error near unexpected token '('\n```\n\n**Error 2:** When attempting to fix:\n```\n/usr/bin/bash: eval: line 1: unexpected EOF while looking for matching `\"'\n```\n\n**Error 3:** Final attempt:\n```\nls: cannot access 'D:\\...\\specs\\001-interface-manager': No such file or directory\n```\n\n![\"Image\"](\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a7a1b5b8-5b3b-41d5-a2d8-01bf6bcc4430\")
\n\n## Environment\n\n- OS: Windows (using WSL or Git Bash)\n- Command: `/specify.plan`\n- Shell: bash\n\n## Suggested Fix\n\nThe tool should:\n1. Detect the operating system/shell environment\n2. Convert Windows paths to forward slashes when generating bash commands\n3. Use proper path quoting and escaping for cross-platform compatibility\n4. Example: `D:\\path\\to\\specs` should become `/d/path/to/specs` or `/mnt/d/path/to/specs` (WSL)\n\n## Impact\n\nThis prevents users on Windows systems from using `/specify.plan` effectively, as the generated commands fail to execute.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1061/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1060",
"id": 3556055682,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7T9RqC",
"number": 1060,
"title": "specify commands do not show up in codex cli",
"user": {
"login": "bigcan",
"id": 1679270,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE2NzkyNzA=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1679270?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/bigcan",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 4,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T10:18:44Z",
"updated_at": "2025-11-15T07:41:31Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "specify cli commands do not show in codex cli\nran specify check command confirms specify cli installed and codex cli available, however the commands are not shown in codex cli\n\ni also use claude code, it works fine",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1060/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1059",
"id": 3555613716,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7T7lwU",
"number": 1059,
"title": "How to update/improve plan after updating an existing spec (without receating plan from scratch)",
"user": {
"login": "armujahid",
"id": 3725386,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjM3MjUzODY=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3725386?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/armujahid",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 5,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T08:26:55Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-13T02:27:59Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "I’ve noticed that when we update the spec and re-plan, even with explicit instructions to modify the existing plan, it gets overwritten with the plan template (using setup-plan.sh) and recreated. Is there a recommended way to update the plan without fully recreating it, or is this behavior intentional? Similar to how /clarify updates the spec, it would be useful to have a command that allows updating or improving the existing plan (without conflicting with spec).",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1059/reactions",
"total_count": 12,
"+1": 12,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1058",
"id": 3555442894,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7T68DO",
"number": 1058,
"title": "content after /speckit.*** command not working for cursor-agent",
"user": {
"login": "BugsEverywhere",
"id": 11451675,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjExNDUxNjc1",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11451675?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/BugsEverywhere",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 5,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T07:32:20Z",
"updated_at": "2025-12-21T08:00:36Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "![\"Image\"](\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/6c74ae4f-d944-4cc0-9899-125c787804b2\")
\n\n\nFor other AI agents (claude code, qwen, etc), everything is fine\n\n\n\nEnvironment info:\n1. OS: mac\n2. npm version: 11.6.0\n3. cursor-agent version: 2025.10.22-f894c20\n\nHope some one can help.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1058/reactions",
"total_count": 6,
"+1": 5,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 1,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1055",
"id": 3554752873,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7T4Tlp",
"number": 1055,
"title": "Will Augment Code be supported?",
"user": {
"login": "gakeez",
"id": 25997379,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjI1OTk3Mzc5",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/25997379?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/gakeez",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-27T01:59:38Z",
"updated_at": "2025-11-26T16:58:33Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": null,
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1055/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1052",
"id": 3553371871,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TzCbf",
"number": 1052,
"title": "/ commands are missing from Claude code for Vscode extension",
"user": {
"login": "rh1ppo",
"id": 213133068,
"node_id": "U_kgDODLQnDA",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/213133068?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/rh1ppo",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {
"0": {
"id": 9261375035,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACKAVeOw",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/needs-verification",
"name": "needs-verification",
"color": "B95D4A",
"default": false,
"description": "Pull request or bug report that requires validation and testing before it can be acted on."
}
},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-26T07:10:10Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-27T14:23:36Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": {
"id": 71,
"node_id": "IT_kwDNJr9H",
"name": "Bug",
"description": "An unexpected problem or behavior",
"color": "red",
"created_at": "2023-10-09T13:30:49Z",
"updated_at": "2024-05-30T18:20:53Z",
"is_enabled": true
},
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Occasionally the / commands go missing on Claude Code for Vscode extension. It works on terminal.\ni've run init --here and force upgrade to no avail.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1052/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1051",
"id": 3553354706,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Ty-PS",
"number": 1051,
"title": "Add Documentation Generation Feature to Speckit for Standardized Project Documentation",
"user": {
"login": "CutrelyAlex",
"id": 88236310,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjg4MjM2MzEw",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/88236310?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/CutrelyAlex",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-26T06:43:30Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-26T19:09:30Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Description\nAs a developer working on complex projects, I've recently created standardized documentation templates to ensure consistency across system modules. This includes user guides, API references, and Mermaid diagram collections. I propose adding a documentation generation feature to Speckit that can automatically scaffold and populate these documentation artifacts based on project structure and code analysis.\n\n## Proposed Feature\nImplement a speckit docs generate command or similar functionality that:\nAnalyzes the project structure (e.g., C# assemblies, Unity scripts)\nGenerates standardized Markdown templates for:\nUser guides (task-oriented, with quick starts and common scenarios)\nAPI references (minimal, table-format parameter docs with examples)\nDiagram collections (Mermaid-based class diagrams, flowcharts, sequence diagrams, state diagrams)\nPopulates templates with extracted code metadata (e.g., namespaces, method signatures, class relationships)\nSupports configuration files for customization (e.g., diagram complexity levels based on system scale)\n\n## Differentiation from Existing Speckit Documentation Features\nWhile Speckit may already provide basic documentation generation (such as data-model.md or quick-start.md), this proposed feature differs by focusing on comprehensive, user-facing documentation suites rather than developer-only artifacts. It emphasizes structured templates for end-user guides and visual diagrams, enabling better onboarding and system understanding, whereas existing features might prioritize code-level documentation. This addition would complement Speckit's current capabilities by bridging the gap between technical API docs and practical user documentation.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1051/reactions",
"total_count": 3,
"+1": 3,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1050",
"id": 3553347925,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Ty8lV",
"number": 1050,
"title": "Feature Request: Support git submodules when creating feature branches",
"user": {
"login": "jpiquot",
"id": 6775094,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY3NzUwOTQ=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6775094?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/jpiquot",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-26T06:33:51Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-26T06:33:51Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Problem\n\nWhen executing the `specify` command, Speckit creates a feature branch for the main repository but does not create corresponding feature branches in the submodule repositories.\n\n## Current Behavior\n\n- Running `specify` creates a feature branch in the main repository\n- Git submodules remain on their current branch/commit\n- This creates a workflow mismatch when working with repositories that use submodules\n\n## Desired Behavior\n\nWhen creating a feature branch via the `specify` command, Speckit should:\n1. Create a feature branch in the main repository (current behavior)\n2. Detect any git submodules in the repository\n3. Create corresponding feature branches in each submodule repository\n4. Update the submodule references to track the new branches\n\n## Use Case\n\nProjects using git submodules for modular architecture need consistent branching across all modules when starting new features. This would ensure that:\n- All related changes are tracked in feature branches across the entire codebase\n- Submodule changes can be properly reviewed and merged as part of the feature\n- The development workflow remains consistent between main repository and submodules\n\n## Additional Context\n\nThis would be particularly useful for monorepo-adjacent architectures where submodules are used to maintain separation of concerns while still requiring coordinated feature development.\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1050/reactions",
"total_count": 3,
"+1": 3,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1049",
"id": 3553329306,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Ty4Ca",
"number": 1049,
"title": "Add Automated Testing for Bash and PowerShell Scripts",
"user": {
"login": "amondnet",
"id": 1964421,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE5NjQ0MjE=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1964421?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/amondnet",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-26T06:03:10Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-26T06:07:18Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Summary\n\nThis proposal adds comprehensive automated testing for the shell scripts in `scripts/bash/` and `scripts/powershell/` using Bats and Pester testing frameworks, integrated with GitHub Actions CI.\n\n## Motivation\n\nCurrently, the Spec Kit project has no automated tests for its critical shell scripts (common.sh, setup-plan.sh, check-prerequisites.sh, create-new-feature.sh, update-agent-context.sh). This creates risks:\n\n- No regression detection when scripts are modified\n- Manual testing burden for contributors\n- No verification that Bash and PowerShell scripts produce identical outputs\n- Difficult to validate cross-platform compatibility\n\nThe CONTRIBUTING.md states \"Write tests for new functionality\" [1], but the scripts predating this guideline remain untested.\n\n### Related Issues\n\nSeveral existing issues demonstrate the need for automated testing:\n\n**Script Bugs and Edge Cases**:\n- [#1038](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/1038) - Unable to source common.sh when CDPATH is set\n- [#1029](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/1029) - Dates generated by scripts are incorrect\n- [#975](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/975) - create-new-feature.ps1 ignores existing feature branches when determining next feature number\n- [#965](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/965) - Scripts REPO_ROOT variable issue in nested folders\n- [#957](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/957) - PowerShell script issue with apostrophes in arguments\n\n**Script Usability Problems**:\n- [#842](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/842) - Copilot/Spec-kit seem unable to write PowerShell scripts that work\n\nThese issues would have been caught earlier with automated tests, preventing user friction and reducing maintenance burden.\n\n## Proposed Solution\n\nImplement automated testing using industry-standard frameworks:\n\n**For Bash scripts**: Bats (Bash Automated Testing System)\n- TAP-compliant testing framework [2]\n- Used by major projects (Docker, Kubernetes helpers)\n- CI integration with GitHub Actions [3]\n\n**For PowerShell scripts**: Pester\n- Official Microsoft-endorsed testing framework [4]\n- Pre-installed on GitHub-hosted runners [5]\n- Native GitHub Actions support\n\n## Implementation Plan\n\n### Directory Structure\n```\ntests/\n├── bash/\n│ ├── test_helper/ # bats-support, bats-assert, bats-file\n│ ├── unit/ # Function-level tests\n│ └── integration/ # Workflow tests\n├── powershell/\n│ ├── unit/ # Function-level tests\n│ └── integration/ # Workflow tests\n└── fixtures/ # Shared test data\n```\n\n### Test Coverage Goals\n\n**Unit Tests** (70%+ coverage target):\n- `common.sh/ps1`: Core utility functions (get_repo_root, get_current_branch, find_feature_dir_by_prefix)\n- `setup-plan.sh/ps1`: Plan template setup, JSON/text output validation\n- `check-prerequisites.sh/ps1`: Prerequisite validation logic\n- `create-new-feature.sh/ps1`: Branch numbering, naming conventions, Git/non-Git modes\n\n**Integration Tests**:\n- `update-agent-context.sh/ps1`: Full workflow including plan parsing, template generation\n- Git vs non-Git repository scenarios\n- Cross-platform compatibility (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS)\n- Parity tests (Bash and PowerShell produce identical outputs)\n\n### CI Integration\n\nGitHub Actions workflow (`.github/workflows/test-scripts.yml`):\n- Parallel execution: Bash tests (ubuntu-latest), PowerShell tests (windows-latest)\n- Cross-platform smoke tests (all three major OSes)\n- Test result artifacts and reports\n- Runs on every push/PR affecting scripts or tests\n\n## Benefits\n\n1. **Regression Prevention**: Automated detection of breaking changes\n2. **Cross-Platform Validation**: Ensures Windows and Unix scripts stay synchronized\n3. **Contributor Confidence**: Contributors can verify their changes don't break existing functionality\n4. **Documentation**: Tests serve as executable examples of script usage\n5. **Quality Gates**: Aligns with project's \"Write tests for new functionality\" guideline\n\n## Phased Rollout\n\nTo facilitate review, this will be submitted as multiple PRs:\n\n1. PR 1: Test infrastructure and fixtures\n2. PR 2: Bash common.sh tests + CI integration\n3. PR 3: PowerShell common.ps1 tests + CI integration\n4. PR 4: Remaining unit tests (setup-plan, check-prerequisites, create-new-feature)\n5. PR 5: Integration tests (update-agent-context, workflows)\n6. PR 6: Documentation and CONTRIBUTING.md updates\n\n## Example Test Cases\n\n**Bash (Bats)**:\n```bash\n@test \"get_repo_root returns git root when available\" {\n cd \"$TEST_TEMP_DIR\"\n git init\n source scripts/bash/common.sh\n\n result=\"$(get_repo_root)\"\n assert_equal \"$result\" \"$TEST_TEMP_DIR\"\n}\n\n@test \"get_current_branch respects SPECIFY_FEATURE env var\" {\n export SPECIFY_FEATURE=\"002-my-feature\"\n source scripts/bash/common.sh\n\n result=\"$(get_current_branch)\"\n assert_equal \"$result\" \"002-my-feature\"\n}\n```\n\n**PowerShell (Pester)**:\n```powershell\nDescribe 'common.ps1' {\n It 'Get-RepoRoot returns git root when available' {\n Push-Location TestDrive:\\\n git init\n . \"$PSScriptRoot/../../../scripts/powershell/common.ps1\"\n\n $result = Get-RepoRoot\n $result | Should -Be (Get-Location).Path\n\n Pop-Location\n }\n}\n```\n\n## Risks and Mitigations\n\n**Risk**: CI execution time increase\n**Mitigation**: Parallel job execution, selective test running on relevant path changes\n\n**Risk**: Flaky tests\n**Mitigation**: Proper temporary directory cleanup, timeout configurations, documented retry policies\n\n**Risk**: Maintenance burden\n**Mitigation**: Clear test structure, comprehensive documentation, DRY principles with shared fixtures\n\n## Alternative Approaches Considered\n\n1. **Shell script linters only (shellcheck, PSScriptAnalyzer)**\n - Rejected: Static analysis doesn't verify runtime behavior\n\n2. **Manual testing checklist**\n - Rejected: Error-prone, time-consuming, not scalable\n\n3. **Single test framework for both**\n - Rejected: No cross-platform framework provides native feel for both ecosystems\n\n## References\n\n### Documentation\n[1] CONTRIBUTING.md - https://github.com/spec-kit/spec-kit/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#submitting-a-pull-request\n\n[2] Bats-core GitHub Repository - https://github.com/bats-core/bats-core\n\n[3] Bats-core Documentation - https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/\n\n[4] Pester Official Website - https://pester.dev/\n\n[5] GitHub Actions: Building and testing PowerShell - https://docs.github.com/en/actions/use-cases-and-examples/building-and-testing/building-and-testing-powershell\n\n[6] Testing Bash with BATS (Opensource.com) - https://opensource.com/article/19/2/testing-bash-bats\n\n[7] PullRequest.com: Testing Bash Scripts with BATS - https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/testing-bash-scripts-with-bats-a-practical-guide/\n\n### Related Issues\n[8] Issue #1038 - Unable to source common.sh when CDPATH is set - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/1038\n\n[9] Issue #1029 - Dates generated by scripts are incorrect - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/1029\n\n[10] Issue #987 - create-new-feature shell script is often called incorrectly - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/987\n\n[11] Issue #975 - create-new-feature.ps1 ignores existing feature branches - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/975\n\n[12] Issue #965 - Scripts REPO_ROOT variable issue - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/965\n\n[13] Issue #957 - PowerShell script issue with apostrophes - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/957\n\n[14] Issue #842 - Copilot/Spec-kit seem unable to write PowerShell scripts that work - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/842\n\n[15] Issue #338 - Problems detected by shellcheck on the provided bash scripts - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/338\n\n## AI Assistance Disclosure\n\nThis proposal was developed with assistance from [PleaseAI](https://github.com/pleaseai) + Claude Agent SDK (Anthropic). The analysis, test strategy, and implementation plan were collaboratively created. All technical claims have been verified against official documentation, and the proposed approach follows industry best practices for shell script testing.\n\n---\n\n\n@seon-yunjae",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1049/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1047",
"id": 3553107913,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TyB_J",
"number": 1047,
"title": "Feature Request: Project-Level PRD Generation and Phase/Status Tracking",
"user": {
"login": "harishkm83",
"id": 97283806,
"node_id": "U_kgDOBcxu3g",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/97283806?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/harishkm83",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-25T23:51:54Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-25T23:51:54Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "\n**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** \nCurrently, the `/speckit.specify` command works very well for individual feature specifications, but there is no structured way to capture, view, or manage an overall list of project features or their implementation status in one place. In larger projects, it becomes difficult to track high-level progress, plan upcoming phases, or update the project status holistically. This lack of visibility increases the risk of misalignment and impedes effective planning.\n\n**Describe the solution you'd like** \nI propose introducing a new Spec Kit command to generate and manage a project-wide Product Requirements Document (PRD) from a comprehensive list of requirements. \n- This command should:\n - Accept the *complete* project’s requirements and generate a structured PRD representing the full scope of the project, broken down by phases and sub-tasks.\n - Allow phases/sub-tasks to be updated with status indicators (e.g., Not Started, In Progress, Done).\n - Support linking phases/sub-tasks to their respective feature specifications.\n - Enable referencing specific phases or tasks when invoking the `/speckit.specify` or `/speckit.plan` commands (e.g., “specify phase 1 in prd”).\n- The PRD should be an evolving artifact:\n - Each project phase can be planned and tracked from inception, and individual phases can be specified, updated, or re-planned as needed.\n - Provide real-time visibility on where the project stands, facilitating planning, coordination, and reporting.\n\n**Describe alternatives you’ve considered** \nWorkarounds include maintaining a separate document or external tracker, but these quickly become unsynchronized and lack the tight integration with Spec Kit’s existing workflow and automation.\n\n**Additional context** \nHaving a project-wide PRD feature will enable teams to:\n- Plan ahead with visibility of all features and their statuses.\n- Update status for each phase, making progress tracking transparent at every project stage.\n- Reference phases/sub-tasks in existing Spec Kit commands, improving usability and alignment.\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1047/reactions",
"total_count": 8,
"+1": 8,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1045",
"id": 3552691796,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TwcZU",
"number": 1045,
"title": "Copilot generates its own instructions file instead of following Spec Kit flow",
"user": {
"login": "nsierraj",
"id": 1663957,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE2NjM5NTc=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1663957?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/nsierraj",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 2,
"created_at": "2025-10-25T16:30:51Z",
"updated_at": "2025-11-03T06:22:02Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "🐛 Summary\n\nWhen using GitHub Copilot alongside Spec Kit, Copilot sometimes generates its own “instructions” Markdown file (e.g., copilot-instructions.md) if none exists.\nOnce that happens, Copilot begins following its self-generated context instead of the Spec Kit workflow, effectively “taking over” and diverging from the intended /specify → /plan → /tasks → /implement process.\n\n⚙️ Steps to Reproduce\n\nInitialize a new Spec Kit project (uvx --from git+https://github.com/github/spec-kit.git specify init ).\n\nDo not include a copilot-instructions.md file.\n\nBegin prompting Copilot within VS Code to follow the Spec Kit commands.\n\nObserve that after several interactions, Copilot fabricates its own copilot-instructions context or file and begins referencing it.\n\n🧩 Expected Behavior\n\nCopilot should continue referencing the Spec Kit specification and plan as the source of truth—even if a Copilot instruction file is missing.\nAlternatively, it should prompt the user to create a Spec Kit-aligned instructions file, rather than generating one automatically.\n\n💥 Actual Behavior\n\nCopilot generates a new instructions file (or context) and shifts behavior toward its own “self-authored” flow, causing misalignment with the Spec Kit phases and intent.\n\n🧭 Environment\n\nGitHub Copilot: Copilot X / VS Code 1.93\n\nSpec Kit version: v0.x\n\nWorkflow: /specify → /plan → /tasks → /implement\n\n💡 Suggested Fix / Enhancement\n\nAdd logic within Spec Kit to:\n\nAutomatically generate a minimal copilot-instructions.md template that stays synchronized with the Spec and Plan files, or\n\nDetect missing instruction files and display a warning, preventing Copilot from diverging from Spec Kit context.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1045/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1041",
"id": 3552487661,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Tvqjt",
"number": 1041,
"title": "Options as Interactive Items",
"user": {
"login": "sosensible",
"id": 58905,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjU4OTA1",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/58905?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/sosensible",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-25T13:13:46Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-25T13:13:46Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Since we are using AI, the goal is not to create manual duties for the user. VSCode has a start there when choosing a new chat window. At best, a start. You can click on a SpecKit prompt.\n\n## Suggested Enhancements:\n(_I cannot speak for every IDE, so others can speak to those._)\n\n* A (?) that is clickable by each `/speckit.[_action_]` to give the user information on demand.\n* When SpecKit gives us options, it would be great if we could \"click\" on them when they are definitive. Yes, we would still need to manually interact with the others by engaging with the chat.\n* Making the full MD preview available will increase engagement over the changes look alone.\n* When we have todo items, it would be nice if there were a view for that list to track progress and what is there and not there.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1041/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1037",
"id": 3552062971,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TuC37",
"number": 1037,
"title": "Feature request: add .confused or .therapist or .lost",
"user": {
"login": "hooshyar",
"id": 1933643,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE5MzM2NDM=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1933643?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/hooshyar",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-25T08:02:47Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-25T08:02:47Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Add a command that simply tells you what you're doing, which steps are completed, what's left, and what's in progress. I'm always confused and wondering in the middle of the project. ",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1037/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 1,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1036",
"id": 3551526801,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Tr_-R",
"number": 1036,
"title": "Incorrect phase numbering in plan.md",
"user": {
"login": "LiteracyFanatic",
"id": 18249574,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE4MjQ5NTc0",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18249574?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/LiteracyFanatic",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-25T02:14:08Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-25T02:14:08Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "`templates/commands/plan.md` refers to two different list items as Phase 1 and instructs the agent to end after Phase 2 planning but there is nothing labeled as Phase 2.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1036/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": [
1046
]
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1035",
"id": 3551317775,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TrM8P",
"number": 1035,
"title": "feature request: `specify init . --dry-run`",
"user": {
"login": "levonk",
"id": 277861,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjI3Nzg2MQ==",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/277861?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/levonk",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T23:36:41Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-24T23:36:41Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Feature Request: Add `--dry-run` and `--version` Flags to `specify` tool.\n\n### Summary\nWhen running `specify init .` on an existing project, the CLI currently warns that files may be overwritten. To improve safety and transparency, I propose adding two flags:\n\n---\n\n### 1. `--dry-run`\n\n**Purpose**: \nSimulates the install process without making changes.\n\n**Benefits**:\n- Allows users to preview which files would be overwritten or added.\n- Reduces risk of accidental overwrites in existing projects.\n\n**Suggested Behavior**:\n- Outputs a list of affected files.\n- Optionally includes a diff-style summary of changes.\n\n---\n\n### 2. `--version`\n\n**Purpose**: \nOutputs the current version of spec-kit.\n\n**Benefits**:\n- Useful for debugging and reproducibility.\n- Helps users include version info in bug reports.\n\n**Suggested Behavior**:\n- Returns semantic version or latest commit hash.\n- Compatible with standard CLI conventions.\n\n---\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1035/reactions",
"total_count": 2,
"+1": 2,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1033",
"id": 3549955967,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TmAd_",
"number": 1033,
"title": "Is Spec-Kit a big tent project or a small tent project?",
"user": {
"login": "yoDon",
"id": 1760705,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE3NjA3MDU=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1760705?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/yoDon",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 2,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T15:16:54Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-27T04:49:57Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "In [another issue](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/675), a developer raised a non-trivial issue with spec-kit (that there's no guidance on what to do when a spec is completed), and proposed a straw-man conceptual solution to the issue. The issue was immediately closed because the language used in the description of the problem \"looked like it was written by an AI.\" No acknowledgement of the importance of the problem, no recognition of the real human care that had gone into identifying, distilling, and documenting the issue, nor any serious discussion of the strawman solution beyond something about \"mixing slash commands with command arguments.\"\n\nI've never met the developer who proposed that issue (@jellydn). I know nothing about them. But I do know there are an enormous number of developers globally for whom English is not their first language and for whom conversing in English is not easy. Those developers can reasonably be expected to leverage LLM tools to help them converse on and draft issues for a repository where the primary language is English.\n\nImmediately closing [#675](https://github.com/github/spec-kit/issues/675) without serious discussion because its thoughtfully identified and prepared issue description \"looked like it was written by an AI\" feels like a very small-tent approach to contributions. I'm hoping the project will rethink it's attitude towards contributions, both generally (because the population of developers is a big tent population) and specifically (because I think that particular issue is calling out at a minimum a documentation issue of significance, and possibly a functional gap of significance).\n\nI'll also mention I'm clearly not the only person who felt that issue was worthy of consideration, as at the time of this writing it has multiple thumbs-up from other developers and zero thumbs-down. I've looked for guidance on the topic it raised, and have found little to none, and I would like to understand better the next steps to take after a spec is completed.\n\nAnd, for clarity in reference to the \"Contribution guidelines\" of this repository, no AI was used in the drafting of this issue.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1033/reactions",
"total_count": 5,
"+1": 5,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1031",
"id": 3549544940,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TkcHs",
"number": 1031,
"title": "Timely MCP state needed",
"user": {
"login": "sosensible",
"id": 58905,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjU4OTA1",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/58905?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/sosensible",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T13:35:07Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-26T08:30:27Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "As we progress through our VSCode chat, or beyond to other tools, we have different MCP agents active. This creates a load, spends our allotment of resources, slows the flow and all without a gain.\n\nIf different chats could have different MCP resources, perhaps we could switch chat modes, and even have different ones active for different SpecKit commands, that would be productive.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1031/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1030",
"id": 3549384000,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Tj01A",
"number": 1030,
"title": "md linting errors",
"user": {
"login": "quasi",
"id": 67810,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY3ODEw",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67810?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/quasi",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {
"0": {
"id": 9150267163,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACIWX_Gw",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/help%20wanted",
"name": "help wanted",
"color": "008672",
"default": true,
"description": "Extra attention is needed"
},
"1": {
"id": 9221826267,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACJanm2w",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/enhancement",
"name": "enhancement",
"color": "aaaaaa",
"default": true,
"description": null
}
},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T12:58:41Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-27T14:23:36Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": {
"id": 70,
"node_id": "IT_kwDNJr9G",
"name": "Task",
"description": "A specific piece of work",
"color": "yellow",
"created_at": "2023-10-09T13:30:49Z",
"updated_at": "2024-05-30T18:20:40Z",
"is_enabled": true
},
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "I am using latest spec-kit and cursor-agent.\n\nThe generated files have lots (100's in my case) of md linting errors which the agent takes time fixing.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1030/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": [
1576
]
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1029",
"id": 3549358933,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TjutV",
"number": 1029,
"title": "Dates generated by scripts are incorrect",
"user": {
"login": "quasi",
"id": 67810,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjY3ODEw",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/67810?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/quasi",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T12:52:49Z",
"updated_at": "2025-12-01T05:41:52Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "I am using cursor-agent and latest spec-kit.\n\nThe dates inserted in the spec.md and other files are in the past (2024-12-19).",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1029/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1028",
"id": 3548805079,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7ThnfX",
"number": 1028,
"title": "Clarification on overlap between copilot.instructions.md and constitution.md",
"user": {
"login": "rsnpettrov",
"id": 129375144,
"node_id": "U_kgDOB7YbqA",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/129375144?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/rsnpettrov",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T10:45:43Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-24T10:45:43Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Hi team,\n\nI have a question about the relationship between **`copilot.instructions.md`** and **`constitution.md`** in Spec Kit. \nFrom what I can tell, both seem to define rules or behavioral guidance for Copilot, which makes them feel somewhat overlapping in purpose, even if not directly conflicting.\n\nCould you clarify:\n\n- When should we use `copilot.instructions.md` versus `constitution.md`? \n- Are they meant to complement each other, or should we rely on just one of them? \n- If they serve similar roles, should we consider merging or aligning them into a single source of truth to avoid duplication or confusion?\n\nThanks!\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1028/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1027",
"id": 3548282743,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7Tfn93",
"number": 1027,
"title": "Support recognising an existing `constitution.md` placed in a custom location (outside `.specify/memory/`)",
"user": {
"login": "konrouda",
"id": 233577286,
"node_id": "U_kgDODewbRg",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233577286?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/konrouda",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T08:38:16Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-24T08:38:16Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Would be nice to have support for recognising an already-existing `constitution.md` file that may live anywhere in the repository _(not only in the default `.specify/memory/constitution.md`)_. In many projects the constitution has been created in earlier iterations and lives in a custom documentation folder — speckit might be able to discover or be pointed to that file without having to need to change it manually in `speckit.analyze.md`, `speckit.plan.md` files.\n\n**Use case / motivation**\n\nProjects that have already worked with speckit may already have a `constitution.md` in a custom location. Requiring teams to copy it into `.specify/memory/` or to change `speckit.analyze.md`, `speckit.plan.md` files.\n\n**Current behaviour**\n\n`speckit` expects the constitution at the default path _(`.specify/memory/constitution.md`)_ and does not detect or use constitution files placed elsewhere.\n\nIf a project already has a `constitution.md` in a custom folder, speckit either ignores it or requires manual copying/migration to the default path.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1027/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1026",
"id": 3548246592,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TffJA",
"number": 1026,
"title": "Allow to install and use /speckit.* commands from from subfolders (monorepo / workspace support)",
"user": {
"login": "konrouda",
"id": 233577286,
"node_id": "U_kgDODewbRg",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233577286?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/konrouda",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 2,
"created_at": "2025-10-24T08:29:31Z",
"updated_at": "2025-12-18T11:32:01Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "It would be nice to be able to install and run speckit from a subfolder inside a monorepo _(e.g. frontend/ or backend/)_ while still being able to run the whole project from the monorepo root _(for example `pnpm dev`)_ without switching directories. \nIn my current workflow _(using Cursor)_ I install speckit only in the frontend package, but I can’t invoke speckit commands from the chat. It would be very helpful if speckit recognised workspace layouts or provided a --cwd / workspace-aware mode so subfolder installs work smoothly in monorepos.\n\n\n**Use case / motivation**\n\n- Many teams use a monorepo layout (eg. frontend/ + backend/) and only want speckit installed in the package that owns the specs (typically the frontend or a single service).\n\n- Developers frequently run commands from the repository root (eg. pnpm dev, root IDE, or CI job) and expect workspace tools to work without cd-ing into each subfolder.\n\n- Right now, speckit commands either need global installation or require switching to the subfolder as a root — this is inconvenient and error-prone in editor/IDE integrations (Cursor) and CI pipelines.\n\n\n**Current behaviour**\n\nWhen speckit is installed in a subfolder (e.g. `frontend/src/`) invoking `/speckit.*` from the Cursor chat does not find or run the speckit commands for that subfolder. ",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1026/reactions",
"total_count": 17,
"+1": 17,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1024",
"id": 3546158581,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TXhX1",
"number": 1024,
"title": "Tasks duplicated when checked off during implementation",
"user": {
"login": "char-ykn",
"id": 114737668,
"node_id": "U_kgDOBtbCBA",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/114737668?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/char-ykn",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T19:03:30Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-23T19:03:30Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "When running /specify.implement, some tasks on the tasks.md file are duplicated before being marked as done, resulting in two copies of the same task with one marked complete and one incomplete:\n\n![\"Image\"](\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f6034aaf-5048-4147-9a89-dfae0db04eea\")
\n\nI used Github Copilot for this.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1024/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1021",
"id": 3545504202,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TVBnK",
"number": 1021,
"title": "Add support for Block's Goose AI Agent",
"user": {
"login": "ayax79",
"id": 56345,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjU2MzQ1",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/56345?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/ayax79",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {
"0": {
"id": 9221826267,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACJanm2w",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/enhancement",
"name": "enhancement",
"color": "aaaaaa",
"default": true,
"description": null
},
"1": {
"id": 9247173061,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACJyypxQ",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/needs-author-response",
"name": "needs-author-response",
"color": "dd6b1d",
"default": false,
"description": ""
},
"2": {
"id": 9261375035,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACKAVeOw",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/needs-verification",
"name": "needs-verification",
"color": "B95D4A",
"default": false,
"description": "Pull request or bug report that requires validation and testing before it can be acted on."
},
"3": {
"id": 9316682610,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACK1FLcg",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/new-agent",
"name": "new-agent",
"color": "33F174",
"default": false,
"description": ""
}
},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 7,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T16:22:52Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-27T14:23:35Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": {
"id": 69,
"node_id": "IT_kwDNJr9F",
"name": "Feature",
"description": "A request, improvement, or new functionality",
"color": "blue",
"created_at": "2023-10-09T13:30:49Z",
"updated_at": "2025-06-09T18:18:24Z",
"is_enabled": true
},
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Block's open source [AI Agent Goose](https://block.github.io/goose/) is becoming very popular (20.5k starts currently), making it as popular or more popular that many of the current supported agents. It would be great to see it included as supported AI Agents.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1021/reactions",
"total_count": 17,
"+1": 10,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 7,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1017",
"id": 3543249247,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TMbFf",
"number": 1017,
"title": "Consider adding instructions to hand-off implementation to copilot background agent",
"user": {
"login": "thesobercoder",
"id": 1915249,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE5MTUyNDk=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1915249?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/thesobercoder",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {
"0": {
"id": 9221826267,
"node_id": "LA_kwDOPiFCnc8AAAACJanm2w",
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/labels/enhancement",
"name": "enhancement",
"color": "aaaaaa",
"default": true,
"description": null
}
},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T05:49:50Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-27T14:23:35Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "While working with spec-kit, we noticed that it doesn't currently have the ability to hand off implementation to a copilot background agent. This would be a great addition to spec-kit, as it would mean multiple features can be worked on in parallel by handing off work to the copilot background agent.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1017/reactions",
"total_count": 10,
"+1": 10,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1016",
"id": 3543243149,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TMZmN",
"number": 1016,
"title": "Allow the branching strategy to be optional even in git based repos",
"user": {
"login": "thesobercoder",
"id": 1915249,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE5MTUyNDk=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1915249?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/thesobercoder",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 2,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T05:46:57Z",
"updated_at": "2025-11-03T21:50:31Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "In our current setup, we already use feature branches, and it doesn't make sense for spec-kit to create yet another branch. We'd like to have a mechanism to reuse the current branch. Our workflow typically starts with developers first checking out the feature branch and then invoking spec-kit to work on that ticket.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1016/reactions",
"total_count": 8,
"+1": 8,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1014",
"id": 3542792568,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TKrl4",
"number": 1014,
"title": "Number the prompts to easily know the order they should be used",
"user": {
"login": "carolitascl",
"id": 26188349,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjI2MTg4MzQ5",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/26188349?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/carolitascl",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-23T01:04:51Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-23T01:16:39Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "I suggest to number the prompts to easy know the order they should be used\n\nExample 1:( Correlative )\n\n/speckit1.constitution\n/speckit2.specify\n/speckit3.clarify\n/speckit4.plan\n/speckit5.tasks\n/speckit6.checklist\n/speckit7.analyze\n/speckit8.implement\n\nExample 2: ( Indicating optionals with \"op\" next to be the number )\n\n/speckit01.constitution\n/speckit02.specify\n/speckit03op.clarify\n/speckit04.plan\n/speckit05.tasks\n/speckit06op.checklist\n/speckit07op.analyze\n/speckit08.implement\n\nExample 3 ( Separating optionals, and inserting where are recommended its use )\n\n/speckit10.constitution\n/speckit20.specify\n/speckit21op.clarify\n/speckit30.plan\n/speckit40op.tasks\n/speckit41op.checklist\n/speckit42.analyze\n/speckit50.implement\n\nExample 4 ( Separating optionals, using numbers and letters, and inserting where are recommended its use )\n\n/speckit10.constitution\n/speckit20.specify\n/speckit20a.clarify\n/speckit30.plan\n/speckit40.tasks\n/speckit40a.checklist\n/speckit40b.analyze\n/speckit50.implement\n\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1014/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 1,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1012",
"id": 3541730086,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TGoMm",
"number": 1012,
"title": "Propose addition to the implement process that a structured phase close out process is added",
"user": {
"login": "squickone",
"id": 1265845,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjEyNjU4NDU=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1265845?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/squickone",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-22T17:33:58Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-22T17:38:19Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "I worked with Copiliot to create a phases instruction file that I found immensely valuable. I found that commonly as I have been concluding a phase I am left with varying degrees of accuracy in my original docs. I have been manually prompting for updates and I also feel I lose some knowledge surfaced in my chatting with Copilot. This instruction file helps formalize knowledge gained and update the appropriate documents. It may be benefifical to add some form of this natively.\n\n# Phase Implementation Instructions\n\n## Phase Execution Guidelines\n\nWhen implementing a phase of work:\n\n1. **Follow the Phase Plan**: Reference the relevant phase documentation in `docs/phases/` or user story documentation\n2. **Implement Features**: Complete all user stories and tasks within the phase scope\n3. **Test Thoroughly**: Verify all functionality works as expected\n4. **Fix Issues**: Address any bugs or issues that arise during implementation\n\n## Phase Conclusion Requirements\n\nAt the conclusion of each phase, you MUST complete the following documentation updates:\n\n### 1. Update Status Documents\n\nUpdate all relevant status tracking documents:\n- Create or update phase completion document\n- Update user story completion status (if applicable)\n- Add summary of completed work, known issues, and any deferred items\n- Document any technical debt or future enhancements identified\n\n### 2. Evaluate and Update Source Documentation\n\nReview and update the following specification documents if new information surfaced during implementation:\n\n#### spec.md\n- **Evaluate**: Does the implementation reveal requirements that weren't originally documented?\n- **Update if**: New features, edge cases, or business rules were discovered\n- **Include**: Any API changes, new endpoints, or functionality additions\n\n#### plan.md\n- **Evaluate**: Did the implementation approach differ from the original plan?\n- **Update if**: Architecture decisions, technology choices, or implementation strategies changed\n- **Include**: Actual implementation approach, rationale for changes, lessons learned\n\n#### tasks.md\n- **Evaluate**: Were all tasks completed? Did new tasks emerge?\n- **Update if**: Tasks were added, removed, or modified during implementation\n- **Include**: Mark completed tasks, add newly discovered tasks, update priorities\n\n#### research.md\n- **Evaluate**: Did implementation uncover new technical findings or insights?\n- **Update if**: New libraries, patterns, or best practices were discovered and adopted\n- **Include**: Performance findings, security considerations, or technical decisions made\n\n#### data-model.md\n- **Evaluate**: Did the data model change during implementation?\n- **Update if**: Entities, fields, relationships, or constraints were added/modified\n- **Include**: Schema changes, new tables, updated field definitions, new indexes\n\n### 3. Phase Closeout Process\n\nComplete these steps before moving to the next phase:\n\n1. **Review All Changes**\n - List all files created or modified\n - Verify all changes align with requirements\n - Ensure code quality standards are met\n\n2. **Document Deviations**\n - Note any deviations from original specifications\n - Explain rationale for changes\n - Get stakeholder approval if needed\n\n3. **Update Architecture Documentation**\n - If significant architectural changes were made\n\n4. **Create Phase Summary**\n - What was accomplished\n - What issues were encountered and resolved\n - What is deferred to future phases\n - Estimated vs actual effort (if tracked)\n\n5. **Recommend Next Steps**\n - Suggest improvements or refactoring for future phases\n - Identify technical debt to address\n - Propose optimization opportunities\n\n## Documentation Update Template\n\nWhen recommending updates, use this format:\n\n```markdown\n## Documentation Updates Required for Phase {N}\n\n### spec.md Updates\n- [ ] Add section on {new feature discovered}\n- [ ] Update API documentation for {endpoint changes}\n- [ ] Document {new requirement or constraint}\n\n### plan.md Updates\n- [ ] Revise implementation approach for {component}\n- [ ] Add lessons learned: {key insight}\n- [ ] Update architecture decision: {what changed and why}\n\n### tasks.md Updates\n- [x] Mark completed: {task description}\n- [ ] Add new task: {newly discovered work}\n- [ ] Update task priority: {task} (reason)\n\n### research.md Updates\n- [ ] Document performance findings: {metric or insight}\n- [ ] Add library evaluation: {library name and decision}\n- [ ] Include security consideration: {finding}\n\n### data-model.md Updates\n- [ ] Add new entity: {EntityName} with fields {list}\n- [ ] Update relationship: {Entity1} to {Entity2}\n- [ ] Document schema change: {what changed}\n```\n\n## Best Practices\n\n1. **Be Proactive**: Don't wait until the phase is complete to think about documentation\n2. **Document As You Go**: Keep notes during implementation of things that should be documented\n3. **Be Thorough**: Even small insights can be valuable for future maintainers\n4. **Be Honest**: Document what actually happened, not just what was planned\n5. **Think Forward**: Consider how your documentation will help the next phase or future developers\n\n## Example Phase Closeout Checklist\n\n- [ ] All phase objectives completed\n- [ ] All tests passing\n- [ ] Bug fixes documented\n- [ ] Phase completion document created/updated\n- [ ] Status documents updated\n- [ ] spec.md reviewed and updated (if needed)\n- [ ] plan.md reviewed and updated (if needed)\n- [ ] tasks.md reviewed and updated (if needed)\n- [ ] research.md reviewed and updated (if needed)\n- [ ] data-model.md reviewed and updated (if needed)\n- [ ] Architecture documentation updated (if needed)\n- [ ] Technical debt documented\n- [ ] Next phase recommendations provided\n- [ ] Code review completed (if applicable)\n- [ ] Deployment notes prepared (if applicable)\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1012/reactions",
"total_count": 3,
"+1": 3,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1011",
"id": 3541020302,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7TD66O",
"number": 1011,
"title": "Workflow /specify.plan running development before tasks",
"user": {
"login": "juniorsereno",
"id": 49523129,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjQ5NTIzMTI5",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/49523129?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/juniorsereno",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 2,
"created_at": "2025-10-22T14:04:37Z",
"updated_at": "2026-02-24T18:45:20Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "When I ran the \"plan\" command the agent executed the script, created plan.md and started the development process autonomously without generating tasks. I believe adjustments are needed in the workflow to keep it limited to creating plan.md. See what I asked at the end:\n\nMe:\nHave you already created the tab? Wasn't the plan workflow only supposed to generate the plan.md file?\n\nAgent:\nYou are absolutely right. I apologize for the misunderstanding. The command /speckit.plan.md should have generated only the file plan.md for your review.\nI went ahead and executed the plan as well, but the planning step is formally complete with the creation of the file.",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1011/reactions",
"total_count": 1,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 1
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1008",
"id": 3539303914,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7S9X3q",
"number": 1008,
"title": "[feature-request]: Incremental Task Execution",
"user": {
"login": "ekadetov",
"id": 58550263,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjU4NTUwMjYz",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/58550263?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/ekadetov",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-22T06:28:18Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-23T04:32:34Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "## Feature Request: Incremental Task Execution\n\n### Problem\nSpec-Kit currently provides `/speckit.implement` which executes **all tasks at once**, but there's no built-in way to:\n- Execute tasks incrementally (one at a time)\n- Track execution state/progress\n- Resume from where you left off\n- Maintain task completion history\n\nThis makes it difficult to work on large features in manageable chunks or collaborate across multiple sessions.\n\n### Proposed Solution\nAdd a new command `/speckit.execute-next` that:\n\n1. **Finds** the next `NOT_STARTED` task with dependencies met\n2. **Generates** a detailed implementation plan for that specific task\n3. **Executes** only that specific task following the plan\n4. **Verifies** implementation meets requirements\n5. **Updates** task status in `tasks.md`\n6. **Commits** changes with task ID\n7. **Reports** progress and prompts for next task\n\nEach task would include its own mini-plan with:\n- Specific files to create/modify\n- Step-by-step implementation instructions\n- References to relevant spec/constitution sections\n- Verification criteria\n- Expected outcomes\n\n### Benefits\n- ✅ Work in focused, manageable increments\n- ✅ Clear progress tracking across sessions\n- ✅ Better for code review (one task = one commit)\n- ✅ Easier to pause/resume work\n- ✅ Execution history preserved in `tasks.md`\n\n### Implementation Approach\nEnhance `tasks.md` template to include:\n- Task status tracking (`NOT_STARTED`, `IN_PROGRESS`, `COMPLETED`)\n- Execution commands for each task\n- Verification steps\n- Progress summary\n- Execution log\n\nAdd new command template at `.specify/templates/commands/execute-next.md` that orchestrates the incremental execution flow.\n\n### Example Workflow\n```bash\n/speckit.tasks # Generate tasks.md\n/speckit.execute-next # Execute Task 1.1\n# ... verify, commit ...\n/speckit.execute-next # Execute Task 1.2\n# ... continue incrementally ...\n```\n\n### Questions\n- Does this align with Spec-Kit's design philosophy?\n- Should this be a core command or remain a customization example?\n- Are there alternative approaches you'd recommend?\n\nHappy to contribute a PR if this direction makes sense!",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1008/reactions",
"total_count": 4,
"+1": 4,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1006",
"id": 3539027682,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7S8Ubi",
"number": 1006,
"title": "The modification of the ID results in the waste of tokens",
"user": {
"login": "dz85",
"id": 1564431,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjE1NjQ0MzE=",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1564431?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/dz85",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 1,
"created_at": "2025-10-22T04:02:16Z",
"updated_at": "2025-11-20T09:11:59Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "**Current situation:**\nCurrently, the IDs in the \"tasks.md\" are generated sequentially starting from 1, up to a maximum of 999. The same applies across Phases.\n\n**Problem:**\nWhen modifying the phase (inserting new tasks within the phase before, adjusting the sequence, etc. ), it is necessary to batch modify all the subsequent IDs, resulting in a large amount of token usage.\n\n**Recommendation:**\nDesign an ID strategy, for example, the first two digits represent the phase number, and the last two digits represent the sequence of the task within the phase. When crossing phases, start numbering from 1. The priority of phases is based on the order in the document rather than the ID sequence.\n\nOf course, this is just my initial idea. I welcome everyone to join the discussion. If it is feasible, I can submit a PR.\n\n@localden ",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1006/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1000",
"id": 3538738027,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7S7Ntr",
"number": 1000,
"title": "It will start writing docker-compose files in plan stage",
"user": {
"login": "tlightsky",
"id": 429211,
"node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjQyOTIxMQ==",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/429211?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/tlightsky",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-22T01:35:05Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-22T01:35:05Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "in opencode against grok-code\n\n/speckit.consitition \n/speckit.specify create a docker compose file to run timescaledb\n/speckit.plan create a docker compose file to run timescaledb in a 3 node cluster mode. One master and two replications. save data to current directory.\n\n\n",
"closed_by": null,
"reactions": {
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/1000/reactions",
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
},
"performed_via_github_app": null,
"state_reason": null,
"pinned_comment": null,
"linked_prs": []
},
{
"url": "https://api.github.com/repos/github/spec-kit/issues/971",
"id": 3533891346,
"node_id": "I_kwDOPiFCnc7SoucS",
"number": 971,
"title": "Add `specify list-templates` to list available release template assets",
"user": {
"login": "psmman",
"id": 161755837,
"node_id": "U_kgDOCaQyvQ",
"avatar_url": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/161755837?v=4",
"gravatar_id": "",
"url": "https://api.github.com/users/psmman",
"type": "User",
"user_view_type": "public",
"site_admin": false
},
"labels": {},
"state": "open",
"locked": false,
"assignees": {},
"milestone": null,
"comments": 0,
"created_at": "2025-10-20T20:47:53Z",
"updated_at": "2025-10-20T20:47:53Z",
"closed_at": null,
"assignee": null,
"author_association": "NONE",
"type": null,
"active_lock_reason": null,
"sub_issues_summary": {
"total": 0,
"completed": 0,
"percent_completed": 0
},
"issue_dependencies_summary": {
"blocked_by": 0,
"total_blocked_by": 0,
"blocking": 0,
"total_blocking": 0
},
"body": "Problem\n- When `specify init` fails to find a matching release asset (pattern `spec-kit-template--