Can someone tell me how this stuff is any different from the 90's let's use UML for code gen and how it's not going to fail in the same way?

In my experience, spec drift is the main reason why none of these tools work. Maybe they work for one shot greenfield feature generation but in a large, multi developer long lived code bases, specs rot and end up being more pain than they are worth.

Been using it for a bit. I think its a matter of time until we dont look at code anymore and only look at specs, plans, design docs. I didnt like the doc organization (or lack of it) using a standard reader or editor, so I built one specifically for OpenSpec. Hope you find it useful https://specks.nicotejera.com

Haven’t we moved on from these things? Most recent LLMs have been trained on enough long context tasks to have become pretty good at planning. Perhaps with contributions from the harness. In either case, I wouldn’t bother if I were using Codex or Claude Code.

It's interesting to see the divergence of opinions on these frameworks and also at least anecdotally how many people roll their own custom implementations of workflow management on top of their favourite SDD framework.

I also ended up doing my own thing mainly to address several omissions in the existing frameworks (for SDD I prefer to use Superpowers and/or Matt Pocock's skills):

1. Artifact staleness and tracking - if you have a structure around starting with something like an ADR, common patterns for the whole repo etc., it's super hard to keep track of and actually keep it up to date. You make a strong early decision in an ADR and realize that you have to change it later on, or diverge. These changes get rarely properly recorded.

2. Review loop - Same model review isn't enough, I want bunch of models bouncing off each other, whilst still using my subscription and not API.

3. Feature creep and deferral tracking - it happens a lot that you encounter either during review or one of the validation phases that you also need to implement x, which is not covered by the original spec. There are several options to handle that, with the key that all those decisions need to be tracked and at some point decided by a human.

4. Custom workflow with governance - I have my own preferred SDLC if you can call it that, which includes rounds of agentic review of spec, before manual approval gate, review loop with certain specification depending on the codebase, feature size, deferral rules.

5. Ceremony based on context - Because it would happen that some of the ceremony would get in the way at some points (like producing a 100+ loc spec for 10loc change) I ended up basically developing a flow to decide whether a feature actually needs the full ceremony (full lane) or we can simply use the native plan feature (fast lane), so that I don't have to go through the whole ordeal of steps, when I need a tiny change.

I forked this code and added bits that matched my flow and it works out pretty well https://github.com/nutthouse/tutti

Until LLM context sizes explode by two orders of magnitude, I cannot envision significant agent programming without leaning heavily on spec-driven workflows.

It's also worth noting that SDD is such a wide variety of approaches that the term on its own says very little. For example, SpecKit and SpecDD are both very capable SDD frameworks, yet they have only minimal overlap: SpecDD describes system components (with emphasis on boundaries), while SpecKit is a fairly advanced process for changing specs.

This is my first time seeing openspec, and it seems to share a similar philosophy to what I've been working on this year.

If you like this / SDD, I'd appreciate your feedback:

https://github.com/spekk-ai/spekk-cli

Similar iterative specs philosophy. Ours is a bit different because we focus on declarative specs and installable agent skills. We chose Go for simplicity and minimal requirements (single binary).

Looks like this will be a hard sell for many orgs who are already struggling with explosion of artifacts on JIRA, sharepoint, github, etc. Also, most of them have somewhat settled on some ways (in past 6-8 months) to produce AI first specs and work with them.

Also, this looks like something which leadership level folks need to adopt first and then somehow it needs to trickle down to PI planning and sprint planning. Would like to hear someone's experience on how this has got adopted in their org.

I too felt the need for some structure around AI coding, and created a spec-based tool earlier this year: https://www.shipsmooth.net/. I'm happy using it. I think of it as "light-weight" and encouraging iterative development over specs+code. It creates just one spec file and one "tasks" file for each unit of work. Available as a plugin for Claude, Codex etc.

I have a super simple spec-based workflow. It works amazingly well. I’m amazed how well coding agents can work through what I consider large features.

Last week, I gave a 471 line spec to implement a major feature and it didn’t flinch. I wrote about it here.

https://jaisenmathai.com/articles/sojourn-for-ios-was-45-one...

my org at work adopted openspec, and i strongly dislike it. every change, medium or larger, turns into a large set of multiple markdown documents, each that need review. and they are never handwritten - always slop, filled with the all the tells of ai writing, which i personally find grating.

i find a small, human written spec to be much more effective than these large spec documents.

the idea is that you iterate with your agent to write the spec, you implement, then eventually that spec gets merged into a "spec corpus" that describes all the behavior of the repository. but i don't think that prose can ever enumerate all the behaviors required of code, nor should it. the spec almost immediately becomes out of date.

This section https://openspec.dev/docs/setup links to "Concepts"

Concepts links here: https://github.com/Fission-AI/OpenSpec/blob/main/docs-lab/gu...

All the docs here are the templates rather than the actual file (I presume: https://github.com/Fission-AI/OpenSpec/blob/main/docs/concep...)

Somehow not very confidence inspiring...

Would love to see a standalone binary, global Node installation is annoying

This looks like exactly what I've been thinking I needed. I've tried Superpowers, GSD and oh-my-claude/openagent and mostly they burn more tokens.

Lately I've been using stock OMP and its close to the right balance but not quite enough of the brainstorming and spec maintenance built in. I've tried to layer some simple stuff on myself but with mixed results.

I just have it write a checklist file in /tmp (or a todo folder if I want to keep it), and check off items as it finishes them. Seems to work fine. Is this really needed?

I use this to produce the task list which I then feed into a Ralph loop using a bash script. I save a lot of tokens since each tasks context is so small.

What are people using for this nowadays?

There seems to be a spectrum from fluid, iterative workflows like OpenSpec to more up-front alignment and control like Matt Pocock skills.

Curious what people have settled on.

Tired of wrestling JIRA for AI project specs. If this actually streamlines things, I'm definitely giving it a look.

Spec-driven workflows really seem to be where agent tooling is heading

I've been using this, or more pointedly, I built an agent fleet (bespoke harness) where the planner agent uses OpenSpec to generate the plan. Then turns the tasks into a ticket graph.

It works fairly well, and it is definitely less heavy than SpecKit.

how are people currently evaluating between the different spec writing frameworks out there?

Even OpenSpec is too heavy for me. I do similar things but in one file, which I generate with a skill after a planning session. The important thing is to have a file reviewers can audit the code against.

LOVE. LOVE. LOVE. Openspec.

Easily my favorite spec driven development framework.

It scored really well in our internal evals as well.

I think it has the most sane ceremony and its model fits my mental model really well.

I've also been working on a TUI that will automatically generate "phases" with each one being a openspec spec.

I would highly recommend trying out SpecDriven development. I found it to be the most productive way to work with LLMs for larger tasks, and I have found that it improves performance on larger tasks.

To me, this is where LLMs should go. Collaborating on shared documents that serve as a contract that then gets evaluated post-implementation

I've made multiple attempts to write domain-specific languages for LLMs to use to guide software architecture so that I can have higher-quality software architecture and also so that it can communicate ideas to me in a more terse way.

One thing that I think LLMs are lacking right now is information density. I'm a guitarist, and I like this game called Rocksmith, but I think that its user interface kind of sucks. It's fun to play along with the songs, and it's fun that it scores me on the songs and gamifies playing guitar. For dense notes, the user interface just isn't very good.

That kind of made me think more about information density. A sheet of notes is very dense, but it takes a little more time to process. Guitar tablature is slightly less dense, but I think it strikes a better balance between treble clef and Rocksmith. Really, I'd rather have all three of those presented to me.

This is really where I'd like to go with how I'm writing software now. LLMs: I'd love to be able to just create a specification that is very dense and describes domain-driven design concepts to the LLM, and then have a workflow that will do adversarial review to evaluate those concepts after implementing a phase.

This also kind of solves part of the problem with design decisions and artifact storage and all those things that we kind of see LLMs scatter around a codebase. If it exists in the spec, then it can be referenced later, and you can document changes, etc. Also, if you do the spec right, it could be language-agnostic.

It's just a bundle of skills and md files...

Why does it need to have an entire CLI?

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]