Install
$ agentstack add skill-warpdotdev-oz-for-oss-create-tech-spec ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo 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.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
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 →About
create-tech-spec
Create a tech spec from a GitHub issue for this repository.
Overview
This skill is a thin Oz wrapper around the shared tech-spec workflow:
write-tech-spec
Use that shared skill as the base behavior and structure unless this wrapper overrides it. Keep the same emphasis on grounding the plan in current code, documenting relevant files and data flow, explaining tradeoffs, and defining validation.
The Oz-specific differences are:
- the primary input is a GitHub issue, not a Linear issue
- the output path is
specs/GH/tech.md issue_comments.mdand triggering-comment context are additional design inputs- a workflow may also request a structured PR metadata file in
pr-metadata.json - do not create or edit Linear issues as part of this workflow
Inputs
Expect issue details in the prompt, including the issue number, title, description, labels, assignees, and optional prior discussion captured in issue_comments.md.
When available, the product spec at specs/GH/product.md should be treated as the primary input for understanding the intended behavior. The tech spec translates that product intent into an implementation approach.
Process
- Start from the shared
write-tech-specguidance and follow its structure and writing standards unless this wrapper says otherwise. - Read the issue details carefully. If a product spec exists at
specs/GH/product.md, read it first to understand the intended behavior. Ifissue_comments.mdexists, review it for clarifications, prior decisions, and design nuance that should influence the tech plan. - Inspect the repository to understand the current implementation and the likely scope of the requested work before writing the spec. Do not guess about current architecture when the code can be inspected directly.
- Create or update
specs/GH/tech.md. - Use the shared skill's structure as the baseline, adapted to this repository and issue format. At minimum, cover:
- problem
- relevant code
- current state
- proposed changes
- end-to-end flow when useful
- risks and mitigations
- testing and validation
- follow-ups or open technical questions
- Keep the tech spec concise, actionable, and grounded in actual code paths and ownership boundaries in this repository.
- Do not implement the feature or modify production code as part of this task. Limit changes to the tech spec artifact and any minimal repository metadata needed to support it. Treat temporary context files such as
issue_comments.mdas scratch input only and do not commit them. - Do not include issue number references (e.g.
(#N),Refs #N) in commit messages. The issue is already linked in the PR. - If the prompt asks for it, write
pr-metadata.jsonat the repository root containing a JSON object with the fieldsbranch_name,pr_title, andpr_summary. Thepr_summaryshould summarize the resulting spec changes, validation, and any reviewer-relevant assumptions or open questions. For spec-only PRs, include a non-closing reference to the source issue such asRelated issue: #rather than closing keywords likeClosesorFixes. - Default behavior: do not stage files, create commits, push branches, open pull requests, or use the GitHub CLI. If the prompt explicitly instructs you to publish a named branch, you may commit and push exactly the requested spec changes to that branch, but still do not open or update the pull request yourself unless the prompt explicitly asks for it.
- In your final response, provide a brief summary of the tech spec and call out any assumptions or open questions so the workflow can reuse that summary when creating the PR.
Outputs
- Leave the repository with the new or updated tech spec file ready to be committed by the workflow.
- When requested by the prompt, leave a ready-to-use
pr-metadata.jsonwithbranch_name,pr_title, andpr_summary. - If the issue is underspecified, still produce the best possible tech spec and clearly capture assumptions or open questions in the spec file and final response.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: warpdotdev
- Source: warpdotdev/oz-for-oss
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://oz.warp.dev
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.