AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Spec

skill-kazdenc-builder-skills-spec · by kazdenc

Write a technical specification or acceptance criteria from a PRD or user stories. Bridges product requirements to engineering implementation. Use when user says "write a tech spec", "technical specification", "acceptance criteria", "engineering spec", "how should we build this", or needs to translate product requirements into technical plans.

No reviews yet
0 installs
35 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-kazdenc-builder-skills-spec

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-kazdenc-builder-skills-spec)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
6mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Spec? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Technical Specification

A tech spec answers how we'll build something — without over-prescribing implementation details that engineers should own. It bridges product requirements to engineering execution.

Step 1: Read the Requirements

Before writing, gather the inputs. A spec without requirements is guesswork.

| Source | What to pull from it | |--------|---------------------| | PRD | Problem, goals, functional requirements, non-functional requirements, scope boundaries | | Job stories | User workflows, acceptance criteria, edge cases | | Conversation | If neither exists, interview the user to establish what the system must do and for whom |

Flag anything ambiguous. A spec built on vague requirements produces vague engineering.

Step 2: Write the Spec

Use this structure. Adapt headings to the project — not every section applies every time.

# Tech Spec: [Feature / System Name]

## Overview
One paragraph. What this is, why we're building it, and what it connects to.
Link to the PRD or source requirements.

## Technical Approach
The core design decision. How this fits into the existing system.
Keep it to the architecture level — components, their responsibilities,
how they interact. Don't write pseudocode unless it clarifies a tricky algorithm.

## Data Model
New tables, fields, or schema changes. Include:
- Field name, type, constraints
- Relationships to existing models
- Migration notes (new table vs altering existing)

## API Design
Endpoints, methods, request/response shapes.
For each endpoint:
- Method + path
- Request body / params
- Response shape
- Error cases

## Edge Cases
What happens when things go wrong or get weird.

| Case | Behavior | Rationale |
|------|----------|-----------|
| User submits duplicate | Return existing record, don't create new | Prevents data bloat |
| Payload exceeds size limit | Reject with 413, log for monitoring | Protects downstream services |

## Testing Strategy
What gets tested and how.
- Unit tests: which modules, what coverage target
- Integration tests: which workflows end-to-end
- Manual QA: what can't be automated and why

## Migration Plan
Only if changing existing systems. Cover:
- Data migration steps
- Backward compatibility (can old and new coexist during rollout?)
- Rollback procedure

## Rollout Plan
How this gets to users.
- Feature flag strategy
- Phased rollout stages (internal → beta → GA)
- Monitoring and alerting during rollout
- Success/failure criteria for each stage

Decision Log

Every non-obvious choice gets logged. This prevents re-litigating decisions later and helps future engineers understand why things are the way they are.

## Decisions

### D-1: [Short description of the decision]
**Options considered:**
1. Option A — [brief description]
2. Option B — [brief description]
3. Option C — [brief description]

**Decision:** Option B

**Rationale:** [Why this option wins. Reference constraints, trade-offs,
or requirements that drove the choice.]

Keep decisions numbered (D-1, D-2) so they can be referenced in code comments and PR descriptions.

Quality Checks

Before delivering the spec, verify:

  • Does it answer "how" without dictating unnecessary "what exactly"? The spec should constrain the architecture, not micromanage the implementation. Engineers need room to make local decisions.
  • Are edge cases covered? If you only describe the happy path, the implementation will only handle the happy path.
  • Is the data model complete? Missing a field or relationship here means a migration later.
  • Do API contracts match the requirements? Walk each job story through the API. Does the data flow support every acceptance criterion?
  • Is the testing strategy proportional? Critical paths get thorough tests. Low-risk utilities get basic coverage. Don't spec 100% coverage everywhere.
  • Is the rollout reversible? If something goes wrong in production, can you roll back without data loss?

Scope Boundaries

A tech spec is not:

  • A tutorial. Don't explain how frameworks work. Assume engineering competence.
  • A PRD. Don't redefine what we're building. Reference the PRD and focus on how.
  • A project plan. Don't include timelines or task assignments. That's a separate artifact.

When the Spec Is Done

Ship it with:

  1. Clear status — Draft, In Review, or Approved
  2. Open questions — What still needs answers before building starts
  3. Review ask — Who should review (engineering, security, platform) and what feedback you need

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.