Agent skill

Spec Compound

by leo-kuang-ai in leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

Document a recently solved problem or durable project vocabulary in docs/solutions/ or CONCEPTS.md.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Spec Compound

skills CLI
$ npx skills add leo-kuang-ai/spec-first --skill spec-compound -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install leo-kuang-ai/spec-first spec-compound --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/leo-kuang-ai/spec-first.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/spec-compound .claude/skills/spec-compound && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
spec-compound
GitHub stars
107
Token cost
~18k tokens
SKILL.md length
8,766 words
Files
30 (incl. scripts, references, assets)
Skills in repo
35
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Document a recently solved problem or durable project vocabulary in docs/solutions/ or CONCEPTS.md.

  • Works in 8 steps: 5: Auto Memory Scan → Research → Assembly & Candidate Validation → …
  • Capturing a learning after work
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, Workflow Contract Summary, Usage and CONCEPTS.md bootstrap requests, plus 11 more sections
  • Runs JavaScript and Shell scripts from its folder; calls git, bash and gh

What it does

Spec Compound is an agent skill from leo-kuang-ai/spec-first. Document a recently solved problem or durable project vocabulary in docs/solutions/ or CONCEPTS.md. Use when capturing a learning after work.

Its SKILL.md is about 18k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 39 other files, including scripts, reference files and assets (for example `assets/resolution-template.md`, `evals/cases/bootstrap-routes-refresh.yaml` and `evals/cases/unsolved-no-write.yaml`).

It sits in Development. The repository describes itself as: 仓库原生 AI Coding Harness —— 把一次性 AI 对话变成可治理、可验证、可沉淀的工程闭环 · spec-first.cn. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Capturing a learning after work

Example prompts

  • “/spec-compound”

Requirements

  • Node.js
  • A Bash shell

Workflow steps

8 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. 5: Auto Memory Scan
  2. Research
  3. Assembly & Candidate Validation
  4. 4: Vocabulary Capture
  5. 45: Grounding Validation
  6. 46: Optional Candidate Enhancement
  7. 47: Promotion Decision & Per-Target Atomic Publication
  8. 5: Selective Refresh Check

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 74655dc. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Ships 1 file in scripts/ (JavaScript and Shell, from the files we listed), which the agent can run.

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git
    • bash
    • gh

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Spec Compound loads about 18k tokens when it runs, and up to ~35k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 39 tokens; SKILL.md has 8,766 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~39
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~18k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~35k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); the scripts in this folder are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from leo-kuang-ai/spec-first at commit 74655dc, republished under its MIT licence (© leo-kuang-ai). 8,766 words, ~18,261 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/spec-compound/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 29 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
spec-compound
description
Document a recently solved problem or durable project vocabulary in docs/solutions/ or CONCEPTS.md. Use when capturing a learning after work.
argument-hint
[optional: brief context] [mode:headless]

spec-compound

Document a recently solved problem through role-based research; use parallel subagents only when dispatch is explicitly authorized and callable, otherwise run the same roles inline or serially.

Purpose

Captures problem solutions while context is fresh, creating structured documentation in docs/solutions/ with YAML frontmatter for searchability and future reference. Authorized dispatch can parallelize read-only research; correctness does not depend on it.

Why "compound"? Each documented solution compounds your team's knowledge. The first time you solve a problem takes research. Document it, and the next occurrence takes minutes. Knowledge compounds.

Workflow Contract Summary

  • 输入: 一个最近解决且已有可回源验证的单一问题,或该问题带来的 durable project vocabulary。
  • 输出: docs/solutions/ 下带 provenance、适用范围与失效条件的 learning,以及必要时对 CONCEPTS.md 的局部补充。
  • 硬出口: 问题尚未解决、验证证据不足、一次请求包含多个独立 learning、目标 repo/source owner 不明确,或 promotion gate 不满足时不得写入 durable knowledge。
  • 权威: 当前 source/test/log 和已验证 outcome 决定可沉淀事实;LLM 判断复用价值;只有 orchestrator 可写知识资产,dispatch 不授予 mutation。
  • 消费者: 后续 spec-plan、spec-work、spec-debug、spec-code-review 与项目维护者。

Usage

bash
spec-compound                            # Document the most recent fix
spec-compound [brief context]            # Provide additional context hint
spec-compound mode:headless              # Non-interactive run for automations
spec-compound mode:headless [context]    # Non-interactive run with context hint

One learning per run. The workflow's grounding, overlap detection, and cross-referencing all assume a single solved problem. When a session produced multiple distinct learnings, run the skill once per learning, sequentially — each run grounds fresh against the tree. Do not batch several learnings through one run and stitch cross-references between the drafts afterward; drafting-context numbering ("Learning 3") leaking into written docs is the failure this rule prevents.

CONCEPTS.md bootstrap requests

If invoked specifically to create or bootstrap CONCEPTS.md from scratch rather than to document a solved problem, do not run the normal phases — spec-compound populates CONCEPTS.md only as a side effect of documenting a real learning (it seeds the learning's area, not the whole repo; see Phase 2.4). Repo-wide concept-map creation is spec-compound-refresh's job. Redirect a standalone bootstrap request to spec-compound-refresh (which asks whether to build the concept map or run a refresh cycle), then exit.

Mode Detection

Check the invocation arguments supplied by the current host for the exact mode:headless token. Tokens starting with mode: are flags, not context — strip only recognized mode tokens while preserving the remainder, quoted paths, and token order before treating it as the brief context hint.

ModeWhenBehavior
Interactive (default)No mode token presentAuto-pick Full vs Lightweight and report the choice; run the Full-mode session-history probe only with explicit restricted-read authorization; prompt for Discoverability Check consent; end with a plain summary (no "What's next?" menu)
Headlessmode:headless in argumentsNo blocking questions. Run Full mode without session history. Report discoverability gaps without editing instruction files. Skip Phase 2.46 optional candidate enhancement. End with a structured terminal report — no "What's next?" menu.

Headless mode is intended for automations and skill-to-skill invocation where no human is present to answer questions. The doc itself is identical to what an interactive Full run would produce — classification work (track, category, overlap) follows the same rules and writes nothing extra into the artifact. Once detected, headless mode applies for the entire run.

Pre-resolved context

Git branch (pre-resolved): !git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD

If the line above resolved to a plain branch name (like feat/my-branch), use it in Phase 1 session-history filtering so the orchestrator does not waste a turn deriving it. If it still contains a backtick command string, shows an error, or is empty, derive the branch at runtime.

Repo root (pre-resolved): !git rev-parse --show-toplevel

If the line above resolved to an absolute path, use it as the session-history repo filter in Phase 1. If it still contains a backtick command string, shows an error, or is empty, derive the repo root at runtime with the shell tool (git rev-parse --show-toplevel, falling back to the working directory outside a git repo).

Support Files

These files are the durable contract for the workflow. Read them on-demand at the step that needs them — do not bulk-load at skill start.

  • references/schema.yaml — canonical frontmatter fields and enum values (read when validating YAML)
  • references/yaml-schema.md — category mapping from problem_type to directory (read when classifying)
  • references/concepts-vocabulary.md — CONCEPTS.md format and inclusion rules (read in Phase 2.4 when domain terms surface)
  • references/agents/session-historian.md — skill-local synthesis prompt for optional session-history compounding context (read only when explicit restricted-read authorization exists and the relevance gate escalates)
  • references/grounding-validation.md — grounding-validation protocol: flag adjudication rules and the semantic validator prompt (read in Phase 2.45)
  • assets/resolution-template.md — section structure for new docs (read when assembling)
  • scripts/session-history/ — session discovery and extraction scripts copied into this skill so session-history support does not depend on the bundled session-history support
  • scripts/validate-frontmatter.py — frontmatter parser-safety validator plus the opt-in --promotion exit gate for provenance/invalidation (run against the private candidate in Phase 2 step 6 through the existence guard documented there; resolves via the loaded skill directory anchor SKILL_DIR, with a manual-checklist fallback elsewhere)
  • scripts/validate-doc-claims.py — mechanical claims validator: cited paths, commit SHAs, relative links, dangling drafting scaffold (run in Phase 2.45 via the SKILL_DIR anchor)

When spawning subagents, pass the relevant file contents into the task prompt so they have the contract without needing cross-skill paths.

Dispatch Authorization Boundary

在派发 repo profiler、research role、session-history synthesizer、semantic validator 或 specialized reviewer 前,记录:

yaml
worker_dispatch_authorization: authorized | missing
capability_probe: not_applicable | attempted | unavailable
worker_dispatch_capability: available | missing | unknown
worker_context_isolation: isolated | inherited | unknown
worker_model_override: supported | unsupported | unknown
worker_bounded_parallelism: supported | unsupported | unknown

workflow invocation does not authorize dispatch。Full/headless mode、上下文预算、scratch directory、权限设置或 prompt asset 存在都不构成授权。只有当前用户或可见 upstream handoff 明确请求 subagent、delegated work、persona 或 parallel work 时才可派发。缺授权时不得探测 tool schema,固定为 capability_probe: not_applicable + worker_dispatch_capability: unknown,依次 inline 或 serial 执行相同 role prompts 并记录 dispatch_authorization_missing。只有授权后才把 current-session registry/schema 作为 provider_untrusted evidence 检查:确认缺失时记录 subagent_capability_missing;surface 不可用、schema 不完整或候选不唯一时记录 worker_capability_unproven,均使用同一 fallback。隔离、模型覆盖和有界并发只取 live facts;required isolation 未满足时保持依赖 gate 打开,model unknown 时继承,parallelism unknown 时串行。记录 worker_dispatch_outcome。Fallback 保留 Context Analyzer、Solution Extractor、Related Docs Finder 等角色合同,但不得声称 independent subagent、fresh-context 或 parallel coverage。无论哪种路径,只有 orchestrator 可以写 docs/solutions/、CONCEPTS.md、instruction files 或任何 tracked path。

Execution Strategy

spec-compound does not ask the user which mode to run. Mode depends on context budget the agent can observe. Cross-session history is different: reading private session stores is a restricted-read boundary, so the workflow probes it only when the current user or visible upstream handoff explicitly authorizes that read; it never infers authorization from a compound request, Full mode, local file access, or tool availability. Missing authorization skips the probe with restricted_read_authorization_missing rather than opening another question. The only interactive prompt in the normal workflow is the Discoverability Check consent, because that one edits a tracked instruction file.

Mode selection (Full vs Lightweight) — decide it, don't ask it.

  • Default to Full: the complete workflow (research, cross-referencing, overlap detection, grounding validation). This is the right choice for essentially every documented learning — its token cost is small next to the engineering work that produced the learning and is dwarfed by the value of a doc that compounds.
  • Choose Lightweight (single-pass, no subagents — see Lightweight Mode) only when the learning is low-risk, bounded, source-grounded, and already backed by verification evidence, and either the session is near its context limit or the fix is trivial enough that cross-referencing would add nothing. Context pressure alone never waives promotion obligations. A learning is high-risk when a wrong or stale claim could materially weaken security/authorization, data integrity, migration/release safety, privacy, compliance, or irreversible mutation boundaries. High-risk learnings use Full mode; if the remaining context cannot support Full mode, leave a handoff or emit Documentation skipped instead of writing durable knowledge.
  • State the chosen mode and a one-line reason as the first line of the completion output (e.g., "Ran Full mode." / "Ran Lightweight mode — session context was tight."). If Lightweight was the wrong call for the user's taste, re-running is a rare, cheap correction — cheaper than taxing every run with a prompt.

In headless mode, skip mode selection entirely and run Full Mode with session history disabled (Phase 1 step 4 omitted). Headless does not elevate dispatch authority; when the package-local boundary is not satisfied, proceed through the serial inline Full fallback.

Session history — an authorization-gated probe in Full mode. When explicit restricted-read authorization exists, Full mode runs the cheap discovery+metadata probe (Phase 1 step 4) and escalates to extraction+synthesis only when the probe surfaces genuinely relevant candidate sessions. Without that authorization, record restricted_read_authorization_missing and continue without session context; do not inspect session roots or tool schemas. Lightweight and headless modes skip session history entirely. There is no standalone session-history product surface; this support exists only inside the compounding workflow.


Full Mode

<critical_requirement> The primary deliverable is ONE file - the final documentation.

When dispatch is authorized, Phase 1 subagents write their full structured output to the caller-provided owner-only <private-scratch-dir> and return only a compact confirmation containing the artifact path. In inline fallback, the orchestrator runs the same roles serially and writes the same scratch artifacts itself. Phase 2 reads those artifacts in either path. Scratch is ephemeral and never the only durable deliverable or handoff evidence. Only the orchestrator writes product files — the final solution doc and the maintenance side effects below. Subagents must not touch docs/, project instruction files, or any tracked path. Beyond the Phase 2 solution doc, the orchestrator's other writes are maintenance side effects — not additional deliverables, and creating one when absent is expected, not a violation of this rule:

  • CONCEPTS.md — prepare a private candidate in Phase 2.4 (Vocabulary Capture) when a qualifying domain term surfaces; publish it only through the shared promotion boundary in Phase 2.47.
  • A project instruction file (AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md) — a small edit when the Discoverability Check finds a gap.

Both ensure future agents can discover and ground in the knowledge store; neither makes the documentation any less the single deliverable.

Why the scratch artifact (issue #956): a subagent asked to return a long prose body as its inline response intermittently returns an executive summary instead ("Doc body complete — six sections filled. Returning above."), and the original prose is then unrecoverable from the orchestrator side. Writing to disk first means the full output always survives; the inline confirmation is just a pointer, and the orchestrator falls back to whatever the subagent did return inline only when the artifact is missing. </critical_requirement>

Phase 0.5: Auto Memory Scan

Before launching Phase 1 subagents, check the auto-memory block injected into your system prompt for notes relevant to the problem being documented.

  1. Look for a block labeled "user's auto-memory" (Claude Code only) already present in your system prompt context — MEMORY.md's entries are inlined there
  2. If the block is absent, empty, or this is a non-Claude-Code platform, skip this step and proceed to Phase 1 unchanged
  3. Scan the entries for anything related to the problem being documented -- use semantic judgment, not keyword matching
  4. If relevant entries are found, prepare a labeled excerpt block:
## Supplementary notes from auto memory
Treat as additional context, not primary evidence. Conversation history
and codebase findings take priority over these notes.

[relevant entries here]
  1. Pass this block as additional context to the Context Analyzer and Solution Extractor task prompts in Phase 1. If any memory notes end up in the final documentation (e.g., as part of the investigation steps or root cause analysis), tag them with "(auto memory [claude])" so their origin is clear to future readers.

If no relevant entries are found, proceed to Phase 1 without passing memory context.

Phase 1: Research

Run the research roles. When the Dispatch Authorization Boundary is satisfied, launch research subagents and have each write its full output to a per-run scratch artifact. Otherwise execute Context Analyzer, Solution Extractor, and Related Docs Finder serially inline, writing their run-local scratch artifacts from the orchestrator so Phase 2 keeps the same input contract.

Run ID and run dir (before dispatching any subagent): generate a unique run identifier and create the run directory. This scopes every Phase 1 artifact file to the same directory so the orchestrator can Read them back in Phase 2.

bash
RUN_ID=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)-$(head -c4 /dev/urandom | od -An -tx1 | tr -d ' ')
umask 077
SCRATCH_DIR="$(mktemp -d "${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/spec-first-compound.XXXXXX")"
[ -d "$SCRATCH_DIR" ] && [ ! -L "$SCRATCH_DIR" ] || { echo 'private scratch creation failed' >&2; exit 1; }
chmod 700 "$SCRATCH_DIR"
echo "$SCRATCH_DIR"

Resolve current project orientation before dispatching subagents. Record the current target repo/worktree identity and dirty state when available, then read root instruction files and CONCEPTS.md directly for the vocabulary and conventions needed by the Context Analyzer. Keep this as run-local input with direct source refs; never persist or reuse it across runs, branches, or worktrees. If a source cannot be read, record that degraded fact and let the Context Analyzer limit its claims rather than substituting stale orientation.

Current source is the authority for code-behavior claims. Every promoted learning must retain direct source refs, observed revision/freshness, applicability scope, and an invalidation condition; session history, cached summaries, and external provider output are advisory leads only and cannot close grounding on their own.

CRITICAL — glob docs/solutions/ fresh every run. spec-compound writes new learnings there, so even a run-local orientation assembled earlier cannot stand in for the live enumeration in step 3.

Pass {run_id} and the verified <private-scratch-dir> into every Phase 1 subagent prompt. Recheck that the directory remains owned and non-symlink before publishing each file with same-directory temp + atomic rename. Each subagent writes its full structured output to its own file there, confirms the write succeeded (the file exists and is non-empty), and then returns only a one-line confirmation containing the artifact path — not the prose body inline. Artifact filenames by subagent:

  • Context Analyzer → <private-scratch-dir>/context.json (frontmatter skeleton, category path, filename, track)
  • Solution Extractor → <private-scratch-dir>/solution.md (the full doc-body prose sections)
  • Related Docs Finder → <private-scratch-dir>/related.json (links, refresh candidates, overlap assessment)
  • Session History synthesis subagent (when run) → <private-scratch-dir>/session-history.md (prose findings)

Return the full output inline whenever the artifact write did not succeed. This covers both cases where the orchestrator's Phase 2 inline fallback would otherwise have nothing to read: (a) {run_id} is empty or did not resolve (non-Claude-Code platforms where the pre-resolution failed), so there is no path to write to; and (b) {run_id} resolved but the write itself failed — tool permission denied, absolute-path writes unavailable, disk error, or the post-write existence check came back empty. In either case the subagent must return its complete structured output inline instead of a path, because the path would point at a file that does not exist. Return only the bare path when — and only when — the write is confirmed on disk. The artifact pattern is a reliability improvement, not a hard requirement; the orchestrator handles a missing artifact in Phase 2 by using the inline return.

Execution order:

  • With authorized dispatch, launch Context Analyzer, Solution Extractor, and Related Docs Finder in bounded parallel. Without it, run the same roles serially inline and preserve their separate artifacts/results without presenting them as independent agents.
  • Then, only when explicit restricted-read authorization exists, run the internal session-history discovery/extraction/synthesis flow (see step 4 below) in Full mode — skipped in lightweight and headless. Its cheap discovery+metadata probe runs after authorization and escalates only on a relevance hit. With separately authorized background dispatch it overlaps the research roles; in inline fallback it runs after the three serial research roles so one orchestrator does not interleave several context-heavy jobs. Without restricted-read authorization, record restricted_read_authorization_missing and do not inspect session roots or related tool schemas.
Research roles
1. Context Analyzer
  • Extracts conversation history
  • Reads references/schema.yaml for enum validation and track classification
  • Determines the track (bug or knowledge) from the problem_type
  • Identifies problem type, component, and track-appropriate fields:
    • Bug track: symptoms, root_cause, resolution_type
    • Knowledge track: applies_when (symptoms/root_cause/resolution_type optional)
  • Incorporates auto memory excerpts (if provided by the orchestrator) as supplementary evidence
  • Reads references/yaml-schema.md for category mapping into docs/solutions/
  • Suggests a filename using the pattern [sanitized-problem-slug].md — no date suffix, even if existing files in the target directory have one; the date: frontmatter field is the canonical creation date
  • Writes to context.json: YAML frontmatter skeleton (must include category: plus the promotion exit fields source_refs: and invalidation_condition:), category directory path, suggested filename, and which track applies. Returns only the artifact path.
  • Does not invent enum values, categories, or frontmatter fields from memory; reads the schema and mapping files above
  • Does not force bug-track fields onto knowledge-track learnings or vice versa
2. Solution Extractor
  • Reads references/schema.yaml for track classification (bug vs knowledge)
  • Adapts output structure based on the problem_type track
  • Writes the full doc-body prose (all track-appropriate sections below) to solution.md and returns only the artifact path. This is the subagent most prone to the issue #956 summary-collapse, so its prose must land on disk rather than only in the inline return.
  • Incorporates auto memory excerpts (if provided by the orchestrator) as supplementary evidence -- conversation history and the verified fix take priority; if memory notes contradict the conversation, note the contradiction as cautionary context
  • Grounds code-behavior claims in source, not conversation memory. Before asserting how code behaves (enum values, status semantics, limits, defaults), Read the defining line at the current tree and cite file:line alongside the claim. A claim that cannot be verified against the tree is softened or attributed ("per this session's conclusion…"), never stated as fact
  • Writes merge-state claims for time. Cite PR numbers rather than bare commit SHAs — SHAs are rewritten by rebase/squash merges and may not exist on other checkouts. A "fixed in X" claim requires the fix to be reachable from the current tree; otherwise phrase it as pending ("fix opened in #1608, unmerged as of this writing")

Bug track output sections:

  • Problem: 1-2 sentence description of the issue
  • Symptoms: Observable symptoms (error messages, behavior)
  • What Didn't Work: Failed investigation attempts and why they failed
  • Solution: The actual fix with code examples (before/after when applicable)
  • Why This Works: Root cause explanation and why the solution addresses it
  • Prevention: Strategies to avoid recurrence, best practices, and test cases. Include concrete code examples where applicable (e.g., gem configurations, test assertions, linting rules)

Knowledge track output sections:

  • Context: What situation, gap, or friction prompted this guidance
  • Guidance: The practice, pattern, or recommendation with code examples when useful
  • Why This Matters: Rationale and impact of following or not following this guidance
  • When to Apply: Conditions or situations where this applies
  • Examples: Concrete before/after or usage examples showing the practice in action
  • Searches docs/solutions/ for related documentation
  • Identifies cross-references and links
  • Finds related GitHub issues
  • Flags any related learning or pattern docs that may now be stale, contradicted, or overly broad
  • Assesses overlap with the new doc being created across five dimensions: problem statement, root cause, solution approach, referenced files, and prevention rules. Score as:
    • High: 4-5 dimensions match — essentially the same problem solved again
    • Moderate: 2-3 dimensions match — same area but different angle or solution
    • Low: 0-1 dimensions match — related but distinct
  • Writes to related.json: Links, relationships, refresh candidates, and overlap assessment (score + which dimensions matched). Returns only the artifact path.

Search strategy (grep-first filtering for efficiency):

  1. Extract keywords from the problem context: module names, technical terms, error messages, component types
  2. If the problem category is clear, narrow search to the matching docs/solutions/<category>/ directory
  3. Use the native content-search tool (e.g., Grep in Claude Code) to pre-filter candidate files BEFORE reading any content. Run multiple searches in parallel, case-insensitive, targeting frontmatter fields. These are template patterns -- substitute actual keywords:
    • title:.*<keyword>
    • tags:.*(<keyword1>|<keyword2>)
    • module:.*<module name>
    • component:.*<component>
  4. If search returns >25 candidates, re-run with more specific patterns. If <3, broaden to full content search
  5. Read only frontmatter (first 30 lines) of candidate files to score relevance
  6. Fully read only strong/moderate matches
  7. Return distilled links and relationships, not raw file contents

GitHub issue search:

Prefer the gh CLI for searching related issues: gh issue list --search "<keywords>" --state all --limit 5. If gh is not installed, fall back to the GitHub MCP tools (e.g., unblocked data_retrieval) if available. If neither is available, skip GitHub issue search and note it was skipped in the output.

4. Session History (authorization-gated internal flow after the research block)
  • Run only in Full mode with explicit restricted-read authorization. Without it, record restricted_read_authorization_missing, do not inspect session roots or related tool schemas, and continue to Phase 2 without session context. Skip entirely in lightweight mode or headless mode. After authorization, run a two-stage probe: the cheap discovery+metadata pass executes first, and the expensive extraction+synthesis executes only when the probe clears the relevance gate (see Escalation gate below).
  • Run session discovery, branch/keyword filtering, scan-window selection, deep-dive selection, and per-session extraction directly inside this skill using scripts/session-history/.
  • Read the skill-local synthesis prompt at references/agents/session-historian.md, then dispatch a generic subagent using that prompt content. Do not dispatch a standalone agent by type/name.

Session-history payload — keep tight. A long, keyword-rich payload licenses widening. Use this shape:

  • Pre-resolved context (only if values resolved cleanly above; otherwise omit): repo name, current git branch.

  • Time window: explicit 7 days unless the documented problem clearly spans a longer arc.

  • Problem topic: one sentence naming the concrete issue — error message, module name, what broke and how it was fixed. Not a paragraph; not a bullet list of related topics.

  • Filter rule (one line): "Only surface findings directly relevant to this specific problem. Ignore unrelated work from the same sessions or branches."

  • Output schema:

    Structure your response with these sections (omit any with no findings):
    - What was tried before
    - What didn't work
    - Key decisions
    - Related context

Do not append additional context blocks, exclusion lists, or topic-keyword bullets — verbose payloads give the session-history flow license to keep widening the search and rapidly compound wall time. If keyword search is needed, the internal flow owns that decision based on the topic.

  • Returns: structured digest of findings from prior sessions, or "no relevant prior sessions" if none found.
  • Session history is the final Phase 1 input, not a workflow stop. When it returns, proceed directly to Phase 2 with its output as the last input — do not emit a summary and do not pause for the user. A "no relevant prior sessions" return is still a valid input; the documentation gets written without session context.

Script resolution. Set SKILL_DIR to the absolute path of the directory containing the SKILL.md you just read, and run the bundled scripts from "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/". Set SKILL_DIR inline in each bash block below (shell state does not persist between commands). If the bundled scripts are genuinely not present on disk under "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/", skip session history visibly with: "Session history bundled scripts were not found in this skill's directory; skipping the session-history probe for this run." Continue Phase 2 without session context.

Discovery pipeline. Infer the scan window from the problem topic, starting with 7 days. Run discovery and metadata extraction:

bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the SKILL.md you just read>"
if [ -f "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/discover-sessions.sh" ] && [ -f "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/extract-metadata.py" ]; then
  REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)
  REPO_NAME=$(basename "$REPO_ROOT")
  SCAN_DAYS="7"
  bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/discover-sessions.sh" "$REPO_NAME" "$SCAN_DAYS" --cwd "$REPO_ROOT" | tr '\n' '\0' | xargs -0 bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/run-python.sh" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/extract-metadata.py" --cwd-filter "$REPO_ROOT"
else
  echo "Session history bundled scripts were not found in this skill's directory; skipping the session-history probe for this run."
fi

Pi sessions are included when present under ~/.pi/agent/sessions/; they carry cwd like Codex but no git branch. If _meta.files_processed is 0, return no relevant prior sessions. If the first pass finds no relevant branch matches, or if processing Codex or Pi sessions, derive 2-4 keywords from the topic and re-run metadata extraction with --keyword K1,K2,.... Keep at most 5 sessions across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and Pi, ranked by branch match, keyword match count, file size over 30KB, and recency. Exclude the current session.

Escalation gate. After restricted-read authorization, the discovery+metadata pass above is the cheap probe. Escalate to the extraction and synthesis stages below only when at least one retained candidate clears the relevance bar: a current-branch match, or ≥2 topic-keyword matches. If no candidate clears the bar (including the _meta.files_processed is 0 case), stop here, record no relevant prior sessions as the session-history input, and skip extraction and synthesis. This gate keeps the authorized probe cheap — the expensive synthesis is paid for only when a prior session is genuinely relevant.

Extraction pipeline. Create SCRATCH=$(mktemp -d -t spec-compound-sessions-XXXXXX). For each selected session, write extracted content to scratch files:

bash
SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the SKILL.md you just read>"
if [ -f "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/extract-skeleton.py" ]; then
  bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/run-python.sh" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/session-history/extract-skeleton.py" --output "$SCRATCH/<session-id>.skeleton.txt" < <session-file>
else
  echo "Session history bundled scripts were not found in this skill's directory; skipping the session-history probe for this run."
fi

Use extract-errors.py selectively when dead ends or recurring errors are likely useful. Pass only the scratch file paths and metadata to the synthesis subagent.

Synthesis dispatch. Build a generic subagent prompt containing:

  • the full content of references/agents/session-historian.md
  • problem_topic
  • scratch_dir
  • output_path: <private-scratch-dir>/session-history.md
  • a sessions array with extracted file paths and metadata
  • the output schema above
  • the filter rule above

The subagent reads only the scratch paths, writes its prose findings to <private-scratch-dir>/session-history.md, and returns only that artifact path once the atomic write is confirmed. If {run_id} or the private scratch directory did not resolve, ownership/symlink recheck failed, or the artifact write failed, it returns the prose inline instead. If synthesis fails, note the failure and continue without session context.

Phase 2: Assembly & Candidate Validation

<sequential_tasks>

WAIT for all Phase 1 inputs to complete before proceeding — the three research roles (parallel only under authorized dispatch) and, when separately authorized in Full mode, the internal session-history flow, which may stop at no relevant prior sessions. An authorization skip is a terminal Phase 1 fact, not an empty permission to inspect private session roots.

The orchestrating agent (main conversation) performs these steps:

  1. Collect Phase 1 results from the run artifacts. Read context.json, solution.md, related.json, and session-history.md when that flow ran. Under authorized dispatch, fall back to the subagent's inline return only when its artifact is absent or empty. Under inline fallback, the orchestrator owns both role execution and artifact writes. The artifact is authoritative when present.

  2. Check the overlap assessment from the Related Docs Finder before deciding what to write:

    OverlapAction
    High — existing doc covers the same problem, root cause, and solutionUpdate the existing doc with fresher context (new code examples, updated references, additional prevention tips) rather than creating a duplicate. The existing doc's path and structure stay the same.
    Moderate — same problem area but different angle, root cause, or solutionCreate the new doc normally. Flag the overlap for Phase 2.5 to recommend consolidation review.
    Low or noneCreate the new doc normally.

    The reason to update rather than create: two docs describing the same problem and solution will inevitably drift apart. The newer context is fresher and more trustworthy, so fold it into the existing doc rather than creating a second one that immediately needs consolidation.

    When updating an existing doc, preserve its file path and existing frontmatter structure, but add source_refs and invalidation_condition when absent because this path materially rewrites the learning. Update the solution, code examples, prevention tips, and any stale references. Add a last_updated: YYYY-MM-DD field to the frontmatter. Do not change the title unless the problem framing has materially shifted.

  3. Incorporate session history findings (if available). When the internal session-history flow returned relevant prior-session context:

    • Fold investigation dead ends and failed approaches into the What Didn't Work section (bug track) or Context section (knowledge track)
    • Use cross-session patterns to enrich the Prevention or Why This Matters sections
    • Tag session-sourced content with "(session history)" so its origin is clear to future readers
    • If findings are thin or "no relevant prior sessions," proceed without session context
  4. Assemble the complete markdown into <private-scratch-dir>/learning-candidate.md, reading assets/resolution-template.md for the section structure of new docs. Do not create or modify the final docs/solutions/** path yet. For an existing target, record its current existence and SHA-256 before assembly so publication can detect concurrent drift.

  5. Validate the candidate frontmatter against references/schema.yaml, including non-empty source_refs and invalidation_condition promotion exit fields and the YAML-safety quoting rule for array items (see references/yaml-schema.md > YAML Safety Rules). The references must be grounded and the invalidation condition must be semantically specific; the script in step 6 checks only their mechanical shape.

  6. Validate parser-safety and the knowledge-promotion exit contract on the candidate after every new or materially rewritten learning. Promotion mode catches malformed --- delimiter lines, unquoted # in scalar values (silent comment truncation), unquoted : in scalar values (silent mapping confusion), and mechanically requires a non-empty top-level source_refs array plus a non-empty top-level invalidation_condition. The bundled validator ships inside the skill bundle; SKILL_DIR resolves to the skill directory, but the runtime Bash tool's CWD is the user's project, so a project-relative path (without the $SKILL_DIR prefix) would miss. Run it through an existence guard so platforms that cannot locate the script (harnesses where $SKILL_DIR is unset) fall back to the same manual gate instead of silently skipping the protection:

    bash
    if [ -n "${SKILL_DIR:-}" ] && [ -f "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/validate-frontmatter.py" ]; then
      bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/run-python.sh" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/validate-frontmatter.py" --promotion <candidate-path>
    else
      echo "Bundled validate-frontmatter.py not resolvable on this platform; applying the parser-safety and promotion checklist manually."
    fi
    • If the script ran: exit 0 means the mechanical promotion gate passed; exit 1 means stderr names the offending field(s) — repair the frontmatter and re-run until exit 0. Do not declare success while validation fails.
    • If the script did not run (else branch): apply the same parser-safety and promotion-shape checks by hand. Do not declare success until all four checks pass:
      1. The opening and closing frontmatter delimiters are each a line whose content is --- (trailing whitespace is fine; ---- or ---extra is not a valid delimiter).
      2. For each top-level mapping entry (key: value, no leading indentation) whose value is not already quoted or structured (does not start with ", ', [, {, |, or >): the value must contain no unquoted # (space-then-hash — YAML treats it as a comment and silently truncates) and no unquoted : (colon-then-space — strict YAML may read it as a nested mapping). Quote the whole value if either appears.
      3. source_refs appears exactly once as a top-level non-empty block or flow array, and every item is a non-empty string. Plain tokens that common YAML parsers type as null, boolean, number, sexagesimal, date, or timestamp do not count as strings; quote them.
      4. invalidation_condition appears exactly once as a top-level non-empty scalar or block string, with the same implicit-type quoting rule for plain scalar values. Nested parser-safety values, semantic source credibility, and semantic invalidation adequacy remain outside this mechanical fallback. Then state in the completion output that the bundled script validator was unavailable on this platform and the checks were applied manually.

    Default validator mode remains parser-safety-only for legacy compatibility. --promotion adds only the two promotion exit shapes; it does not judge reference credibility, invalidation adequacy, other schema fields, or enum values. It also does not flag YAML reserved-indicator characters (those produce loud parser errors downstream rather than silent corruption — out of scope). Uses Python 3 stdlib only (no PyYAML or other deps).

When creating a new doc, preserve the section order from assets/resolution-template.md unless the user explicitly asks for a different structure. A candidate passing this mechanical check is not promoted yet.

</sequential_tasks>

Phase 2.4: Vocabulary Capture

First, read references/concepts-vocabulary.md. This is unconditional. Do not pre-judge from memory that nothing qualifies — the reference's criteria are non-obvious and qualifying terms often live in the surrounding conversation rather than the new doc itself. Reading the reference is what makes the rest of the phase possible.

Then, applying those criteria, scan the learning candidate and the surrounding conversation for qualifying domain terms. Prepare any resulting CONCEPTS.md change as <private-scratch-dir>/concepts-candidate.md; do not modify the durable file before Phase 2.47. If CONCEPTS.md exists at repo root, base the candidate on its current contents and record its SHA-256; if it does not exist and at least one qualifying term surfaced, prepare a new candidate.

Verify behavior assertions against source before writing them. When an entry asserts how code behaves (states, transitions, limits, semantics), Read the defining source at the current tree first — an entry drafted from a session-level summary is exactly how wrong semantics enter the glossary. Phase 2.45 re-checks these entries, but the cheap fix is to not write the error.

Seed the learning's area at creation — don't write a lone term. When CONCEPTS.md does not yet exist, alongside the surfaced term also seed the core domain nouns of the area this learning touched, following the Seed goal and Scope of a seed rules in references/concepts-vocabulary.md. The seed is scoped to the learning's area (the modules and domain the fix touched) and defines only terms investigated here — it does not reach for repo-wide nouns. This anchors the surfaced term so it does not dangle against undefined siblings. A repo-wide concept map is spec-compound-refresh's bootstrap path, not this one.

At creation, hold the qualifying bar conservatively for borderline terms. A borderline term, or a class/table/file name dressed up as an entity, defers to a later run — clear core nouns are seeded, borderline ones wait. The conservatism is about quality, not count; updates to an existing file follow the normal criteria.

When bootstrapping the file, start with this preamble under the # Concepts heading, then add the qualifying entries below it:

Shared domain vocabulary for this project — entities, named processes, and status concepts with project-specific meaning. Seeded with core domain vocabulary, then accretes as spec-compound and spec-compound-refresh process learnings; direct edits are fine. Glossary only, not a spec or catch-all.

Refresh the coherence neighborhood of any entry you touch. When adding or editing an entry, also inspect its coherence neighborhood — its cluster siblings and the terms it cross-references or that reference it. Within that neighborhood, do two things: fix glossary violations (implementation specifics — file paths, class names, function signatures, current-config values), and refresh entries the learning's own evidence shows have drifted. Bounds: neighborhood only, never a full-file audit; refresh only on evidence already in hand; if judging a neighbor would require investigation this learning did not do, flag it for spec-compound-refresh rather than editing on a guess. The test: after the edit, would a reader find the touched entry's siblings or referenced terms inconsistent with it? Broader audit is spec-compound-refresh's job.

If no terms qualified after applying the reference's criteria, record that outcome explicitly in the success output (e.g., "Vocabulary capture: scanned, no qualifying terms"). Do not silently skip — the visible scan-and-no-result record is the audit signal that the reference was consulted.

Prepare the vocabulary candidate silently in every mode — no user prompt in interactive, lightweight, or headless. Vocabulary capture is a declared side effect of compounding, not a separate decision per run; the durable write still waits for the shared promotion decision and target-hash recheck. Lightweight mode reaches this through its own single-pass step (see Lightweight Mode), and runs an update-only version — it refines an existing CONCEPTS.md but defers creation/seeding to a Full run.

Show full SKILL.md (3,394 more words)Show less
Phase 2.45: Grounding Validation

The candidate (and any CONCEPTS.md candidate entries from Phase 2.4) may become permanent, trusted knowledge. Validate its claims against the tree before it compounds. Read references/grounding-validation.md now — it holds the adjudication rules and the validator prompt; the steps below are only the trigger.

  1. Mechanical claims check (every mode, including headless). Do not run git fetch unless the current user or visible upstream handoff separately authorized network access and remote-ref mutation; otherwise use existing local refs and mark remote merge-state claims degraded when they cannot be confirmed. Then run the bundled validator against the candidate:

    bash
    SKILL_DIR="<absolute path of the directory containing the SKILL.md you just read>"
    bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/run-python.sh" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/validate-doc-claims.py" <candidate-path>

    Exit 0 means nothing flagged. Exit 1 means flags to adjudicate, not auto-fix — each flagged path, SHA, link, or scaffold pattern is fixed, annotated as historical, or confirmed intentional per the reference's adjudication table. A doc may legitimately cite a path deleted by the very fix it documents; a flag is a question, not a failure. If the script cannot be resolved on this platform, apply the reference's manual checklist and say so in the output — never silently skip.

  2. Semantic grounding validator (Full and headless; lightweight skips this separate pass). When the Dispatch Authorization Boundary is satisfied, dispatch one read-only generic subagent built from the prompt template in the reference, covering the learning candidate plus any CONCEPTS.md candidate entries added or edited this run. Otherwise apply that validator prompt inline, record the matching fallback reason, and do not claim independent semantic validation. In either path, verify code-behavior claims by quoting the defining source line, merge-state claims against remote truth (gh primary, git reachability fallback), and internal completeness of countable assertions. Apply verdicts per the reference, then re-run the mechanical check if the body changed.

Phase 2.46: Optional Candidate Enhancement

Full interactive runs may apply the problem-specific review prompts below to the private candidate before promotion. Headless and Lightweight skip this phase to keep their cost bounded. Dispatch generic read-only reviewers only when the Dispatch Authorization Boundary is satisfied; otherwise run the selected review inline or serially and label it non-independent.

  • performance_issue → references/agents/performance-oracle.md
  • security_issue → references/agents/security-sentinel.md
  • database_issue → references/agents/data-integrity-guardian.md
  • Any code-heavy issue → inspect the candidate's code examples and explanatory claims for speculative abstractions, redundant wrappers, dead branches, and just-in-case parameters. This is a read-only documentation review; do not invoke spec-simplify-code or mutate product code from this workflow.

Apply accepted suggestions only to <private-scratch-dir>/learning-candidate.md or <private-scratch-dir>/concepts-candidate.md. If either candidate changes, rerun the applicable frontmatter and claims checks plus semantic grounding for affected claims. No optional reviewer may edit a durable target or run after publication and still count toward the promotion decision.

Phase 2.47: Promotion Decision & Per-Target Atomic Publication

The orchestrator now makes the semantic promotion decision; scripts do not make it. Choose promote only when the problem is demonstrably resolved, the cited evidence is relevant to the claims, contradictions with current source are resolved in favor of source, and the invalidation condition describes a concrete re-check trigger. A transcript assertion such as “fixed” or “tests passed” is not outcome evidence. A separate reviewer is useful for high-risk material when dispatch is authorized, but is not a universal prerequisite for ordinary low-risk promotion; record whether semantic validation was independent or inline.

  • On skip, leave every final durable path unchanged, best-effort remove the private candidates, and emit Documentation skipped with the failed semantic or evidence condition.
  • On promote, first recompute the recorded existence/SHA-256 of every final target. If any target drifted, stop and rebuild/review the affected candidates against the new source; do not overwrite it. Prepare and validate every same-directory temporary file before the first rename. Publish an approved CONCEPTS.md candidate first and the primary learning last; each target replacement is atomic, but a multi-target run is not an all-or-nothing filesystem transaction. If a later rename fails after an earlier target was published, report the exact partial publication, keep the run incomplete, and do not emit Documentation complete or attempt an unverified overwrite.

The final docs/solutions/** path remains untouched until this phase. This is the durable candidate -> review -> promote boundary; scratch artifacts are not durable knowledge and are never returned as a successful deliverable.

Phase 2.5: Selective Refresh Check

After publishing the new learning, decide whether this new solution is evidence that older docs should be refreshed.

spec-compound-refresh is not a default follow-up. Use it selectively when the new learning suggests an older learning or pattern doc may now be inaccurate.

It makes sense to invoke spec-compound-refresh when one or more of these are true:

  1. A related learning or pattern doc recommends an approach that the new fix now contradicts
  2. The new fix clearly supersedes an older documented solution
  3. The current work involved a refactor, migration, rename, or dependency upgrade that likely invalidated references in older docs
  4. A pattern doc now looks overly broad, outdated, or no longer supported by the refreshed reality
  5. The Related Docs Finder surfaced high-confidence refresh candidates in the same problem space
  6. The Related Docs Finder reported moderate overlap with an existing doc — there may be consolidation opportunities that benefit from a focused review

It does not make sense to invoke spec-compound-refresh when:

  1. No related docs were found
  2. Related docs still appear consistent with the new learning
  3. The overlap is superficial and does not change prior guidance
  4. Refresh would require a broad historical review with weak evidence

Use these rules:

  • If there is one obvious stale candidate, invoke spec-compound-refresh with a narrow scope hint after the new learning is written
  • If there are multiple candidates in the same area, ask the user whether to run a targeted refresh for that module, category, or pattern set
  • If context is already tight or you are in lightweight mode, do not expand into a broad refresh automatically; instead recommend spec-compound-refresh as the next step with a scope hint
  • In headless mode, never invoke spec-compound-refresh and never ask the user. Surface the recommended scope hint in the terminal report's "Refresh recommendation" line and let the caller decide

When invoking or recommending spec-compound-refresh, be explicit about the argument to pass. Prefer the narrowest useful scope:

  • Specific file when one learning or pattern doc is the likely stale artifact
  • Module or component name when several related docs may need review
  • Category name when the drift is concentrated in one solutions area
  • Pattern filename or pattern topic when the stale guidance lives in docs/solutions/patterns/

Examples:

  • spec-compound-refresh plugin-versioning-requirements
  • spec-compound-refresh payments
  • spec-compound-refresh performance-issues
  • spec-compound-refresh critical-patterns

A single scope hint may still expand to multiple related docs when the change is cross-cutting within one domain, category, or pattern area.

Do not invoke spec-compound-refresh without an argument unless the user explicitly wants a broad sweep.

Always capture the new learning first. Refresh is a targeted maintenance follow-up, not a prerequisite for documentation.

Discoverability Check

After the learning is written and the refresh decision is made, check whether the project's instruction files would lead an agent to discover and search docs/solutions/ before starting work in a documented area. This runs every time — the knowledge store only compounds value when agents can find it.

  1. Identify which root-level instruction files exist (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or both). Read the file(s) and determine which holds the substantive content — one file may just be a shim that @-includes the other (e.g., CLAUDE.md containing only @AGENTS.md, or vice versa). The substantive file is the assessment and edit target; ignore shims. If neither file exists, skip this check entirely.

  2. Assess whether an agent reading the instruction files would learn three things:

    • That a searchable knowledge store of documented solutions exists
    • Enough about its structure to search effectively (category organization, YAML frontmatter fields like module, tags, problem_type)
    • When to search it (before implementing features, debugging issues, or making decisions in documented areas — learnings may cover bugs, best practices, workflow patterns, or other institutional knowledge)

    This is a semantic assessment, not a string match. The information could be a line in an architecture section, a bullet in a gotchas section, spread across multiple places, or expressed without ever using the exact path docs/solutions/. Use judgment — if an agent would reasonably discover and use the knowledge store after reading the file, the check passes.

  3. If the spirit is already met, no action needed — move on.

  4. If not: a. Based on the file's existing structure, tone, and density, identify where a mention fits naturally. Before creating a new section, check whether the information could be a single line in the closest related section — an architecture tree, a directory listing, a documentation section, or a conventions block. A line added to an existing section is almost always better than a new headed section. Only add a new section as a last resort when the file has clear sectioned structure and nothing is even remotely related. b. Draft the smallest addition that communicates the three things. Match the file's existing style and density. The addition should describe the knowledge store itself, not the plugin — an agent without the plugin should still find value in it.

    Keep the tone informational, not imperative. Express timing as description, not instruction — "relevant when implementing or debugging in documented areas" rather than "check before implementing or debugging." Imperative directives like "always search before implementing" cause redundant reads when a workflow already includes a dedicated search step. The goal is awareness: agents learn the folder exists and what's in it, then use their own judgment about when to consult it.

    Examples of calibration (not templates — adapt to the file):

    When there's an existing directory listing or architecture section — add a line:

    docs/solutions/  # documented solutions to past problems (bugs, best practices, workflow patterns), organized by category with YAML frontmatter (module, tags, problem_type)

    When nothing in the file is a natural fit — a small headed section is appropriate:

    ## Documented Solutions
    
    `docs/solutions/` — documented solutions to past problems (bugs, best practices, workflow patterns), organized by category with YAML frontmatter (`module`, `tags`, `problem_type`). Relevant when implementing or debugging in documented areas.

    c. In full interactive mode, explain to the user why this matters — agents working in this repo (including fresh sessions, other tools, or collaborators without the plugin) won't know to check docs/solutions/ unless the instruction file surfaces it. Show the proposed change and where it would go, then use the platform's blocking question tool to get consent before making the edit: AskUserQuestion in Claude Code (call ToolSearch with select:AskUserQuestion first if its schema isn't loaded), request_user_input in Codex. Fall back to presenting the proposal in chat only when no blocking tool exists in the harness or the call errors (e.g., Codex edit modes) — not because a schema load is required. Never silently skip the question. In lightweight mode, output a one-line note and move on. In headless mode, do not edit instruction files; emit the proposed change under Discoverability recommendation in the structured terminal report.

  5. If CONCEPTS.md exists at repo root, run a parallel discoverability check for it. Assess whether the instruction file would lead an agent to discover the project's shared domain vocabulary. Use the same workflow as the docs/solutions/ check above: same target file, same edit-placement judgment, same consent-then-edit interaction shape per mode. A line in an existing section is almost always better than a new headed section. Example calibration when nothing else fits:

    CONCEPTS.md  # shared domain vocabulary (entities, named processes, status concepts) — relevant when orienting to the codebase or discussing domain concepts

    Skip this step entirely if CONCEPTS.md does not exist — never nag for an artifact the project has not adopted. When skipped, this step produces no output and no edit.

Lightweight Mode

<critical_requirement> Single-pass alternative — same documentation, fewer tokens.

This mode skips parallel subagents entirely. The orchestrator performs all work in a single pass, producing the same solution document without cross-referencing or duplicate detection.

Headless mode forces Full and does not enter Lightweight — automations get the cross-reference and overlap detection benefits without the interactive overhead.

Lightweight is valid only when the mode-selection eligibility above is satisfied. Security/authorization, data-integrity, migration/release, privacy/compliance, or irreversible-mutation learnings never enter Lightweight merely because context is tight. </critical_requirement>

The orchestrator (main conversation) performs ALL of the following in one sequential pass:

  1. Extract from conversation: Identify the problem and solution from conversation history. Also scan the "user's auto-memory" block injected into your system prompt, if present (Claude Code only) -- use any relevant notes as supplementary context alongside conversation history. Tag any memory-sourced content incorporated into the final doc with "(auto memory [claude])". Before asserting how code behaves (enum values, status semantics, limits, defaults), Read the defining line at the current tree — soften or attribute any claim you cannot verify. Cite PR numbers over bare commit SHAs, and phrase unmerged fixes as pending
  2. Classify: Read references/schema.yaml and references/yaml-schema.md, then determine track (bug vs knowledge), category, and filename
  3. Prepare minimal candidate: create and verify an owner-private scratch directory using the Full-mode scratch rules, then assemble <private-scratch-dir>/learning-candidate.md using the appropriate track template from assets/resolution-template.md. Record the intended final path and its current existence/SHA-256, but do not create or modify that path yet. Include:
    • YAML frontmatter with track-appropriate fields, a grounded non-empty source_refs array, and a concrete non-empty invalidation_condition, applying the YAML-safety quoting rule for array items (see references/yaml-schema.md > YAML Safety Rules)
    • Bug track: Problem, root cause, solution with key code snippets, one prevention tip
    • Knowledge track: Context, guidance with key examples, one applicability note
  4. Vocabulary candidate (update-only): if CONCEPTS.md exists at repo root, read references/concepts-vocabulary.md, then scan the learning candidate and the conversation for qualifying terms and prepare any refinement as <private-scratch-dir>/concepts-candidate.md (same criteria as Phase 2.4). Record the original SHA-256 and leave the final file untouched. Do not bootstrap or seed in lightweight mode — if CONCEPTS.md does not exist, defer creation to a Full run, which owns seeding. Record the outcome in the output (e.g., "Vocabulary: 1 entry refined" or "scanned, no qualifying terms"). If you prepared a refinement and a quick read of AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md shows CONCEPTS.md is not surfaced there, add the discoverability tip to the output below — lightweight tips, it does not edit instruction files (a Full run owns that edit).
  5. Mechanical promotion gate: run the same mechanical promotion validation as Phase 2 step 6 against the learning candidate. If the script is unavailable, apply that step's four-item manual checklist; do not silently skip or declare completion with either field absent:
    bash
    if [ -n "${SKILL_DIR:-}" ] && [ -f "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/validate-frontmatter.py" ]; then
      bash "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/run-python.sh" "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/validate-frontmatter.py" --promotion <candidate-path>
    else
      echo "Bundled validate-frontmatter.py not resolvable on this platform; applying the parser-safety and promotion checklist manually."
    fi
  6. Mechanical claims check: run scripts/validate-doc-claims.py against the candidate exactly as in Phase 2.45 step 1 (same SKILL_DIR anchor, same adjudicate-not-auto-fix rule — read references/grounding-validation.md for the adjudication table when it flags anything).
  7. Semantic promotion decision and publication: apply Phase 2.47 inline. Reconfirm that the learning remains low-risk, resolved, source-grounded, and backed by verification evidence; judge source relevance and invalidation adequacy rather than treating mechanical validation as semantic approval. Only a promote decision may publish the candidate through the per-target atomic boundary. Any failed check, target drift, or unresolved contradiction leaves final paths unchanged and emits Documentation skipped.
  8. Skip optional candidate enhancement (Phase 2.46) and the separate semantic grounding validator (Phase 2.45 step 2) to conserve context. This does not skip the orchestrator's semantic promotion decision.

Lightweight output:

✓ Documentation complete (lightweight mode)

File created:
- docs/solutions/[category]/[filename].md

[If discoverability check found instruction files don't surface the knowledge store:]
Tip: Your AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md doesn't surface docs/solutions/ to agents —
a brief mention helps all agents discover these learnings.

[If CONCEPTS.md was refined this run and isn't surfaced in the instruction files:]
Tip: Your AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md doesn't surface CONCEPTS.md —
a one-line mention helps agents find the shared vocabulary.

Note: This was created in lightweight mode. For richer documentation
(cross-references, detailed prevention strategies, specialized reviews,
semantic grounding validation), re-run spec-compound in a fresh session.

No subagents are launched. No parallel tasks. The solution doc is the one deliverable (Phase 2.4's update-only vocabulary capture may also refine an existing CONCEPTS.md).

In lightweight mode, the overlap check is skipped (no Related Docs Finder subagent). This means lightweight mode may create a doc that overlaps with an existing one. That is acceptable — spec-compound-refresh will catch it later. Only suggest spec-compound-refresh if there is an obvious narrow refresh target. Do not broaden into a large refresh sweep from a lightweight session.


What It Captures

  • Problem symptom: Exact error messages, observable behavior
  • Investigation steps tried: What didn't work and why
  • Root cause analysis: Technical explanation
  • Working solution: Step-by-step fix with code examples
  • Prevention strategies: How to avoid in future
  • Cross-references: Links to related issues and docs

Preconditions

<preconditions enforcement="advisory"> <check condition="problem_solved"> Problem has been solved (not in-progress) </check> <check condition="solution_verified"> Solution has been verified working </check> <check condition="non_trivial"> Non-trivial problem (not simple typo or obvious error) </check> </preconditions>

What It Creates

Organized documentation:

  • File: docs/solutions/[category]/[filename].md

Categories auto-detected from problem:

Bug track:

  • build-errors/
  • test-failures/
  • runtime-errors/
  • performance-issues/
  • database-issues/
  • security-issues/
  • ui-bugs/
  • integration-issues/
  • logic-errors/

Knowledge track:

  • architecture-patterns/ — architectural or structural patterns (agent/skill/pipeline/workflow shape decisions)
  • design-patterns/ — reusable non-architectural design approaches (content generation, interaction patterns, prompt shapes)
  • tooling-decisions/ — language, library, or tool choices with durable rationale
  • conventions/ — team-agreed way of doing something, captured so it survives turnover
  • workflow-issues/
  • developer-experience/
  • documentation-gaps/
  • best-practices/ — fallback only, use when no narrower knowledge-track value applies

Common Mistakes to Avoid

❌ Wrong✅ Correct
Subagents write product files into docs/ or edit tracked pathsSubagents write only atomic artifacts under the verified owner-only <private-scratch-dir> and return the path; orchestrator writes the one final doc
Subagent returns a long prose body only as its inline responseSubagent writes full output to its run artifact; orchestrator Reads it back (inline return is fallback only)
Research and assembly run in parallelResearch completes → then assembly runs
Multiple files created during workflowOne solution doc written or updated: docs/solutions/[category]/[filename].md (plus optional maintenance writes: a CONCEPTS.md create/update from Phase 2.4 and a small instruction-file edit for discoverability)
Creating a new doc when an existing doc covers the same problemCheck overlap assessment; update the existing doc when overlap is high
Asserting code behavior or merge-state from conversation memoryRead the defining source line before asserting; cite PR numbers over SHAs; soften unverifiable claims (Phase 1 extractor rules, re-checked in Phase 2.45)
Batching several learnings through one run and stitching cross-references between draftsOne learning per run; run the skill sequentially for each additional learning

Success Output

Headless mode

Emit a structured terminal report and end the turn. No "What's next?" question, no blocking prompt. End with Documentation complete as the terminal signal so callers can detect completion.

✓ Documentation complete (headless mode)

File: docs/solutions/<category>/<filename>.md  (created | updated)
Track: <bug | knowledge>
Category: <category>
Overlap: <none | low | moderate — see <path> | high — existing doc updated>
Grounding: <clean | N flags adjudicated (X fixed, Y annotated, Z confirmed) | N claims softened or corrected | degraded — merge-state claims unverified offline>
Instruction-file edit: <none needed | applied to <path> | gap noted, not applied>
CONCEPTS.md: <scanned, no qualifying terms | created with N entries (M seeded from the learning's area) | updated — N added, N refined>
Refresh recommendation: <none | scope hint for spec-compound-refresh>

Documentation complete

When no doc was written (e.g., headless invoked on a session where the problem is not yet solved), emit a structured failure instead and end with Documentation skipped so callers can distinguish success from no-op:

✗ Documentation skipped (headless mode)

Reason: <one-sentence explanation — e.g., "no solved problem detected in
conversation history" or "solution not yet verified">

Documentation skipped
Interactive mode
✓ Documentation complete

Ran Full mode.
Auto memory: 2 relevant entries used as supplementary evidence

Execution: <dispatched | inline-serial (`dispatch_authorization_missing` | `subagent_capability_missing` | `worker_capability_unproven`)>

Research Results:
  ✓ Context Analyzer: Identified performance_issue in brief_system, category: performance-issues/
  ✓ Solution Extractor: 3 code fixes, prevention strategies
  ✓ Related Docs Finder: 2 related issues
  ✓ Session History: 3 prior sessions on same branch, 2 failed approaches surfaced

Grounding Validation:
  ✓ Mechanical check: 14 paths, 2 SHAs, 3 links checked — 1 flag annotated as historical
  ✓ Semantic validator: 9 claims verified, 1 merge-state claim softened to pending

Specialized Reviews (execution posture inherited from above):
  ✓ performance-oracle: Validated query optimization approach
  ✓ Code simplification review: Code examples are appropriately minimal

Files written:
- docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-brief-generation.md (created)
- CONCEPTS.md (created with 3 entries: BriefSystem, EmailQueue, Brief Status)

This documentation will be searchable for future reference when similar
issues occur in the Email Processing or Brief System modules.

Refresh recommendation: none

End the turn after the summary — spec-compound does not present a "What's next?" menu. The doc is written and any cross-references the workflow found are already in it. Cross-doc maintenance (fixing references in other docs, consolidation) is deferred to spec-compound-refresh via the Refresh recommendation line above — the skill designed for it — not auto-applied here, which would edit tracked docs beyond the one deliverable. If the user wants to view the file or take a follow-up action, they will ask. (Interactive mode only.)

Alternate interactive output (when updating an existing doc due to high overlap): in headless mode, this case is communicated via the Overlap: high — existing doc updated line of the headless terminal report above, not as a separate output block.

✓ Documentation updated (existing doc refreshed with current context)

Overlap detected: docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-queries.md
  Matched dimensions: problem statement, root cause, solution, referenced files
  Action: Updated existing doc with fresher code examples and prevention tips

File updated:
- docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-queries.md (added last_updated: 2026-03-24)

The Compounding Philosophy

This creates a compounding knowledge system:

  1. First time you solve "N+1 query in brief generation" → Research (30 min)
  2. Document the solution → docs/solutions/performance-issues/n-plus-one-briefs.md (5 min)
  3. Next time similar issue occurs → Quick lookup (2 min)
  4. Knowledge compounds → Team gets smarter

The feedback loop:

Build → Test → Find Issue → Research → Improve → Document → Validate → Deploy
    ↑                                                                      ↓
    └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Each unit of engineering work should make subsequent units of work easier—not harder.

Auto-Invoke

<auto_invoke> <trigger_phrases> - "that worked" - "it's fixed" - "working now" - "problem solved" </trigger_phrases>

<manual_override> Use spec-compound [context] to document immediately without waiting for auto-detection. </manual_override> </auto_invoke>

Output

Publishes the approved learning into docs/solutions/ only after candidate validation and the semantic promotion decision succeed. A skipped or failed promotion leaves every durable target unchanged.

Applicable Specialized Local Prompts

Based on problem type, these local prompt assets can enhance documentation:

Code Quality & Review
  • Read-only code simplification review: Checks solution examples and documentation claims for unnecessary complexity without mutating product code
  • references/agents/pattern-recognition-specialist.md: Identifies anti-patterns or repeating issues
Specific Domain Experts
  • references/agents/performance-oracle.md: Analyzes performance_issue category solutions
  • references/agents/security-sentinel.md: Reviews security_issue solutions for vulnerabilities
  • references/agents/data-integrity-guardian.md: Reviews database_issue migrations and queries
Enhancement & Research
  • references/agents/best-practices-researcher.md: Enriches solution with industry best practices
  • references/agents/framework-docs-researcher.md: Links to framework/library documentation references
When to Invoke
  • Auto-triggered (optional): Generic subagents seeded with local prompts can review the private candidate before promotion
  • Manual trigger: User can run surviving skills such as spec-simplify-code after spec-compound completes for deeper code review and mutation
  • Research workflows - Deep investigation (searches docs/solutions/ for patterns)
  • spec-plan - Planning workflow (references documented solutions)

© leo-kuang-ai, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 29 other files (scripts, references, assets) in skills/spec-compound of leo-kuang-ai/spec-first.

  • SKILL.md
  • assets/resolution-template.md
  • evals/cases/bootstrap-routes-refresh.yaml
  • evals/cases/unsolved-no-write.yaml
  • evals/eval.yaml
  • evals/examples.json
  • evals/fixtures/repos/mini-ledger/README.md
  • evals/fixtures/repos/mini-ledger/package.json
  • evals/fixtures/repos/mini-ledger/src/server.js
  • evals/fixtures/scripts/check-refuses-unsolved.sh
  • references/agents/best-practices-researcher.md
  • … and 19 more

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 74655dc

Compare with similar skills

Spec Compound next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Spec Compound compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Spec Compound this skillleo-kuang-ai/spec-first107—~18kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Vercel Composition Patternssupabase/supabase111k58 repos~726Automated safety check: PassMIT
Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers297k5 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Typescript Advanced Typesrolling-scopes/rsschool-app10k25 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassMPL-2.0
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code78k4 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Official

    React composition patterns that scale. An agent skill from supabase/supabase.

    111k GitHub starsUsed in 58 repos~726 tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.

    297k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.9k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Typescript Advanced Types

    rolling-scopes/rsschool-app

    Master TypeScript's advanced type system including generics, conditional types, mapped types, template literals, and utility types for building type-safe applications.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 25 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review Checklist

    shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code

    Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.

    78k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Greploop

    onyx-dot-app/onyx

    Iteratively improves a PR (GitHub), MR (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) until Greptile gives it a 5/5 confidence score with zero unresolved comments.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~3.3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

All 35 skills in this repo
  • Spec App Consistency Audit

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Audit mobile App PRD/Figma/local-source consistency across page routes, KMP/Clean Architecture, components, analytics, i18n, engineering quality, and industry lenses before runtime validation; use…

    107 GitHub stars~4.6k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Spec Handoff

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Create a durable cross-session handoff or resume from a user-selected continuity source.

    107 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Spec Pov

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Give a decisive, project-grounded verdict on an external input — judged against the current project, not in the abstract.

    107 GitHub stars~4.5k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Spec Resolve PR Feedback

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Resolve PR review feedback by evaluating validity and fixing issues with conflict-aware resolver dispatch.

    107 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check: notes
  • Spec Riffrec Feedback Analysis

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Analyze explicit Riffrec product-feedback captures, including riffrec-.zip, the Riffrec session.json + events.json + recording.webm + voice.webm bundle, or media/notes the user identifies as a…

    107 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Spec Prd

    leo-kuang-ai/spec-first

    Public workflow entrypoint (spec-prd): create, write, refine, or validate planning-readiness of brownfield PRD-grade requirements for existing systems before implementation planning.

    107 GitHub stars~16k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Spec Compound

What does Spec Compound do?

Document a recently solved problem or durable project vocabulary in docs/solutions/ or CONCEPTS.md. Spec Compound is an agent skill from leo-kuang-ai/spec-first.md.

When should I use Spec Compound?

Spec Compound fits situations like: capturing a learning after work.

How do I install Spec Compound in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add leo-kuang-ai/spec-first --skill spec-compound -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/spec-compound in leo-kuang-ai/spec-first) into .claude/skills/spec-compound in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Spec Compound in Codex?

Run `npx skills add leo-kuang-ai/spec-first --skill spec-compound -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/spec-compound in leo-kuang-ai/spec-first) into .agents/skills/spec-compound in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Spec Compound in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add leo-kuang-ai/spec-first --skill spec-compound -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/spec-compound, .gemini/skills/spec-compound, .github/skills/spec-compound and .opencode/skills/spec-compound in your project.

What does Spec Compound need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Spec Compound needs JavaScript and a shell for the scripts in its folder and the command-line tools its instructions call (git, bash and gh). Our summary lists: Node.js; A Bash shell.

Does Spec Compound access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Spec Compound safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. The check reads SKILL.md only: the scripts in the folder are not scanned, so read them before running anything.

What licence does Spec Compound use?

Spec Compound is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Spec Compound use?

About 18k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 73k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 16k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Spec Compound?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Spec Compound: Vercel Composition Patterns (supabase/supabase, 111k stars), Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 297k stars), Typescript Advanced Types (rolling-scopes/rsschool-app, 10k stars) and PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Spec Compound?

leo-kuang-ai (a GitHub user) maintains it in leo-kuang-ai/spec-first, which has 107 GitHub stars. The repository holds 35 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 8, 2026.

Source: leo-kuang-ai/spec-first on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.