/spec-first-delivery
Force plan, HLD, ADRs, and constraints to exist BEFORE any code is generated. Trigger when starting a new feature, epic, or significant change.
$ npx -y skills add jpantsjoha/ai-native-developer-experience --skill spec-first-delivery --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/spec-first-delivery
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Force plan, HLD, ADRs, and constraints to exist BEFORE any code is generated. Trigger when starting a new feature, epic, or significant change.
SKILL.md
spec-first-delivery.SKILL.mdname: spec-first-delivery
description: Force plan, HLD, ADRs, and constraints to exist BEFORE any code is generated. Trigger when starting a new feature, epic, or significant change.
Spec-First Delivery
> **Review the spec harder than the code. The cheapest place to be wrong is the spec.**
The harness runs in this order: spec → plan → tasks → code. Skipping the spec is not faster — it is a deferred rewrite.
When to use
- Any new feature or epic with more than ~1 day of effort
- Infrastructure or architectural changes
- Anything involving a new external dependency, data boundary, or API contract
- Any time an agent offers to "just start coding"
Procedure
1. **Establish the vision artifact** — confirm the project's vision document exists and is current (e.g. `docs/VISION.md` or equivalent per project structure). If not, create or update it before proceeding. 2. **Write the feature spec** — document: what, why, who (user/actor), constraints, acceptance criteria, and out-of-scope. Reject vague specs ("improve performance") in favour of measurable ones ("p99 latency < 200 ms under 1k rps"). 3. **Author or reference the HLD** — a high-level design covering: components affected, data flows, integration points, and failure modes. Diagrams preferred (C4 or sequence). 4. **Create or update ADRs** — one ADR per significant technical decision. Format: Context → Decision → Consequences (trade-offs). Number sequentially (`ADR-NNN`). 5. **Document constraints up front** — security requirements, data residency, budget ceiling, compliance scope, team skill set. Constraints missed here surface as blockers late. 6. **Validate spec completeness** — the spec is done when: acceptance criteria are testable, the failure mode is named, rollback is considered, and cost impact is estimated. 7. **Only then**: generate the implementation plan and tasks. Hand the spec (not a prompt) to the agent.
Outputs
- `requirements/FEATURE_SPEC.md` (or equivalent per project structure)
- `architecture/decisions/ADR-NNN-<short-title>.md` (one per decision)
- `architecture/HLD-<feature>.md` (if not already covered)
- Updated project roadmap (e.g. `docs/ROADMAP.md` or equivalent per project structure) with new tasks or milestones
Guardrails
- **No code without a spec.** If an agent begins generating code before a spec exists, stop it and invoke this skill.
- **Loose spec = confident but wrong output.** A vague spec produces plausible-looking, wrong code. Tighten the spec first.
- **Spec is not a prompt.** The spec is a structured document with testable criteria; a prompt is a hint. Do not substitute one for the other.
- **Context efficiency**: Evaluate whether full spec documents are needed, or whether ADRs + plan mode provide sufficient context. Overhead should be proportional to risk.
Anti-rationalization table
| Excuse the agent makes | Counter | |---|---| | "I have enough context to start coding" | No spec = no acceptance criteria = no way to know if the output is correct. Write the spec. | | "The spec will slow us down" | A missing spec causes rewrites. Rewrites cost more than specs. | | "The requirements are obvious" | Obvious requirements are the ones most often wrong. Write them down and verify. | | "We can spec it after the prototype" | Prototypes become production. Spec it now. |
Read more
name: spec-first-delivery description: Force plan, HLD, ADRs, and constraints to exist BEFORE any code is generated. Trigger when starting a new feature, epic, or significant change.
Spec-First Delivery
> **Review the spec harder than the code. The cheapest place to be wrong is the spec.**
The harness runs in this order: spec → plan → tasks → code. Skipping the spec is not faster — it is a deferred rewrite.
When to use
- Any new feature or epic with more than ~1 day of effort
- Infrastructure or architectural changes
- Anything involving a new external dependency, data boundary, or API contract
- Any time an agent offers to "just start coding"
Procedure
1. **Establish the vision artifact** — confirm the project's vision document exists and is current (e.g. `docs/VISION.md` or equivalent per project structure). If not, create or update it before proceeding. 2. **Write the feature spec** — document: what, why, who (user/actor), constraints, acceptance criteria, and out-of-scope. Reject vague specs ("improve performance") in favour of measurable ones ("p99 latency < 200 ms under 1k rps"). 3. **Author or reference the HLD** — a high-level design covering: components affected, data flows, integration points, and failure modes. Diagrams preferred (C4 or sequence). 4. **Create or update ADRs** — one ADR per significant technical decision. Format: Context → Decision → Consequences (trade-offs). Number sequentially (`ADR-NNN`). 5. **Document constraints up front** — security requirements, data residency, budget ceiling, compliance scope, team skill set. Constraints missed here surface as blockers late. 6. **Validate spec completeness** — the spec is done when: acceptance criteria are testable, the failure mode is named, rollback is considered, and cost impact is estimated. 7. **Only then**: generate the implementation plan and tasks. Hand the spec (not a prompt) to the agent.
Outputs
- `requirements/FEATURE_SPEC.md` (or equivalent per project structure)
- `architecture/decisions/ADR-NNN-<short-title>.md` (one per decision)
- `architecture/HLD-<feature>.md` (if not already covered)
- Updated project roadmap (e.g. `docs/ROADMAP.md` or equivalent per project structure) with new tasks or milestones
Guardrails
- **No code without a spec.** If an agent begins generating code before a spec exists, stop it and invoke this skill.
- **Loose spec = confident but wrong output.** A vague spec produces plausible-looking, wrong code. Tighten the spec first.
- **Spec is not a prompt.** The spec is a structured document with testable criteria; a prompt is a hint. Do not substitute one for the other.
- **Context efficiency**: Evaluate whether full spec documents are needed, or whether ADRs + plan mode provide sufficient context. Overhead should be proportional to risk.
Anti-rationalization table
| Excuse the agent makes | Counter | |---|---| | "I have enough context to start coding" | No spec = no acceptance criteria = no way to know if the output is correct. Write the spec. | | "The spec will slow us down" | A missing spec causes rewrites. Rewrites cost more than specs. | | "The requirements are obvious" | Obvious requirements are the ones most often wrong. Write them down and verify. | | "We can spec it after the prototype" | Prototypes become production. Spec it now. |
A team-project AI harness bootstrap that gives humans and agents a shared operating contract from day one, moving AI leverage from an individual “IC superhero” advantage to a repeatable team capability on an equal playing field.
Other skills on join-the-team.
- /adk-expert
Google ADK (Agent Development Kit) orchestration patterns — boundaries, agent composition, and tool seams. Trigger when designing or reviewing multi-agent systems built on ADK. Authoritative source: adk.dev.
Open skill - /adversarial-gate
JP's signature red-team pass — "how would I break this?" Argue against your own approach before proceeding. Trigger on any high-stakes decision, architecture choice, or before marking work complete.
Open skill - /alibaba-expert
Alibaba Cloud expert guardrails — RAM least-privilege, data boundaries, residency (mainland/international split), cost, and official-source validation. Trigger when designing or reviewing any Alibaba Cloud workload, especially agents or LLMs (Model Studio/Bailian, Qwen,
Open skill - /aws-expert
AWS expert guardrails — IAM least-privilege, data boundaries, cost controls, residency, and official-source validation. Trigger when designing or reviewing any AWS workload, especially agents, LLMs (Bedrock), or multi-account systems.
Open skill - /azure-expert
Azure expert guardrails — Entra ID least-privilege, policy-first governance, data boundaries, cost, residency, and official-source validation. Trigger when designing or reviewing any Azure workload, especially agents, LLMs (Foundry/OpenAI), or landing-zone systems.
Open skill - /cost-guardrail
LLM and cloud cost awareness — model tiering, token budgets, right-sizing, and when a cheaper model suffices. Trigger before finalising any architecture that calls LLMs, before scaling a workload, or when a cost estimate is needed.
Open skill

