By robertraf
Spec Driven Development pipeline — skills for spec, plan, tasks, implement, review, ship, and agent team workflows
Reviews technical plans against the codebase for feasibility, correctness, and completeness. Use after /plan to get a second opinion before approving the plan.
Reviews functional specifications for completeness, ambiguity, and missing edge cases. Use after /spec to get a second opinion before approving the spec.
Implements tasks using strict Test-Driven Development (Red-Green-Refactor). Works through the task list one at a time, each producing a verified, tested change. Use when user says "implement", "start coding", "begin implementation", "TDD this", "build it", or after running /tasks. Do NOT use for exploratory coding or prototyping without a task list. Requires a task list in context and an active feature branch.
Automates batch file migrations from one pattern to another. Language and framework agnostic. Use when user says "migrate files", "batch migration", "convert all files from X to Y", "replace pattern across files", "mass refactor", or "migrate codebase". Do NOT use for single-file changes or non-migration refactors.
Creates a technical plan from a functional spec. Defines HOW to build it: architecture decisions, data models, testing strategy, constraints. Reads the actual codebase for context. Use when user says "plan this", "technical plan", "how to build", "architect", "design the solution", or after running /spec. Do NOT use without a spec — run /spec first.
Validates completed batch migrations for consistency and correctness. Checks for residual old patterns, runs tests, verifies build, and generates a quality report. Use when user says "review migration", "validate migration", "check migration status", "verify batch changes", or after running /migrate. Do NOT use if no migration has been performed.
Reviews code changes before shipping. Checks for bugs, security issues, performance problems, test coverage gaps, and adherence to project conventions. Use when user says "review code", "review changes", "check my code", "code review", "review before PR", or between /implement and /ship. Do NOT use for spec review (use spec-reviewer agent) or plan review (use plan-reviewer agent).
Executes bash commands
Hook triggers when Bash tool is used
Uses power tools
Uses Bash, Write, or Edit tools
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
Spec Driven Development skills for Claude Code — from ambiguous requirement to merged PR.
A set of Claude Code skills implementing Spec Driven Development (SDD) — a methodology that eliminates ambiguity before code gets written. Language and framework agnostic.
AI coding agents don't fail because the model is weak. They fail because the instructions are ambiguous.
When you tell an agent "add a feature to manage items from the backoffice," it has to guess: which backoffice, which API contract, which authorization model, which error handling strategy. Each guess is a silent decision. Some are right. Some are wrong.
SDD fixes this by separating what to build from how to build it, then breaking work into self-contained tasks:
Specify → Plan → Tasks → Implement → Review → Ship → Close-loop
By the time the agent writes code, it has everything it needs. No guessing. After merge, a final close-loop phase archives lessons into a per-repo knowledge base so the next feature starts smarter.
| Phase | Skill | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | /spec | Functional specification — WHAT to build. Given/When/Then acceptance criteria. Technology-agnostic. |
| 2 | /plan | Technical plan — HOW to build it. Reads the codebase. Architecture decisions, testing strategy. |
| 3 | /tasks | Task breakdown — DIVIDE. Small, ordered, self-contained tasks. Creates GitHub issue + branch via gh. |
| 4 | /implement | TDD implementation — BUILD. Red → Green → Refactor, one task at a time. |
| 5 | /review | Code review — CHECK. Bugs, security, performance, conventions before shipping. |
| 6 | /ship | Commit + push + PR — DELIVER. Conventional commits. PR via gh pr create. Optional wiki preliminary ingest. |
| 7 | /sdd:wiki-close-loop | Post-merge CLOSE-LOOP. Archive review findings and lessons learned into the repo wiki. Manual by design. |
Use /sdd:run to orchestrate phases 1-6 in a single pipeline with quality gates. Phase 7 stays manual — nothing is written to the wiki without explicit confirmation.
/ship is not terminal. The PR is a live artifact until merge. Review feedback, CI failures, and post-review commits are expected between /ship and the actual merge.
sequenceDiagram
actor User
participant Spec as /spec
participant SR as spec-reviewer
participant Plan as /plan
participant PR as plan-reviewer
participant Tasks as /tasks
participant Impl as /implement
participant Review as /review
participant Ship as /ship
User->>Spec: User story or PRD
Spec->>User: Functional specification
User-->>SR: Review spec (optional)
SR-->>User: Issues / Ready
rect rgb(255, 245, 230)
Note over User,Spec: Gate: User approval
end
User->>Plan: Approved spec
Plan->>User: Technical plan
User-->>PR: Review plan (optional)
PR-->>User: Issues / Ready
rect rgb(255, 245, 230)
Note over User,Plan: Gate: User approval
end
User->>Tasks: Approved plan
Tasks->>User: Task list + GitHub issue + branch
rect rgb(255, 245, 230)
Note over User,Tasks: Gate: User approval
end
User->>Impl: Task list
loop Each task
Impl->>Impl: Red → Green → Refactor
end
Impl->>User: All tests passing
User->>Review: Review changes
Review->>User: Verdict + issues
User->>Ship: Ship it
Ship->>User: Committed + PR created
Ship-->>User: Ingest spec/plan/tasks to .wiki/? (optional)
Note over User,Ship: PR is live — review, CI, post-review commits happen here
User->>User: PR merges
User-->>User: /sdd:wiki-close-loop (optional, post-merge)
A per-repo .wiki/ directory accumulates high-value SDD artifacts so future sessions consult prior work instead of rediscovering context. Everything is opt-in — the wiki is never written without explicit user confirmation.
| Skill | What it does |
|---|---|
/sdd:wiki-ingest | Write SDD artifacts to .wiki/. --preliminary (spec/plan/tasks) or --final (review findings/lessons). Delegated from /ship and /sdd:wiki-close-loop. |
/sdd:wiki-close-loop | Post-merge: gather review comments + post-review commits via gh, then write final pages cross-linked to the preliminary entries. |
/spec and /plan automatically consult the wiki before interviewing the user — if a matching prior spec or plan exists, it is surfaced for reuse. Absence of .wiki/ is a graceful no-op. See .claude/rules/wiki-conventions.md for the full schema.
| Skill | What it does |
|---|---|
/migrate | Scan → analyze → migrate files from one pattern to another |
/review-migration | Validate completed migrations: residual check, tests, build, quality report |
npx claudepluginhub robertraf/rob-agent-workflow --plugin sddHarness-native ECC operator layer - 67 agents, 271 skills, 92 legacy command shims, reusable hooks, rules, selective install profiles, and production-ready workflows for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, and related agent harnesses
Reliable automation, in-depth debugging, and performance analysis in Chrome using Chrome DevTools and Puppeteer
Access thousands of AI prompts and skills directly in your AI coding assistant. Search prompts, discover skills, save your own, and improve prompts with AI.
Feature development with code-architect/explorer/reviewer agents, CLAUDE.md audit and session learnings, and Agent Skills creation with eval benchmarking from Anthropic.
Core skills library for Claude Code: TDD, debugging, collaboration patterns, and proven techniques
Comprehensive feature development workflow with specialized agents for codebase exploration, architecture design, and quality review