approve-spec

/pr-autopilot:approve-spec

The hard gate between spec lifecycle and code lifecycle. Must be invoked by user, not autonomously by agent — the AskUserQuestion primitive is the strongest available guarantee at the harness layer (interactive UI element that requires a physical click; the conversation transcript captures the user's literal selection). It is NOT cryptographic — agent edits to the claim file remain a defense-in-depth limit documented in the spec.

Full algorithm + gate strength analysis: docs/superpowers/specs/2026-05-28-pr-autopilot-v0.5-pre-pr-lifecycle-design.md (v2.2 §/approve-spec + §enforce-spec-gate.sh).

Pre-flight

• Inside a worktree with .claude/assignment-claims/<id>.json present.
• subStatus == spec_review_complete (P0-6 fix — must have reviewed first; EVAL 44 covers attempting approve without review).

Steps

1. Read claim file. Verify subStatus == spec_review_complete. Reject otherwise:

   • If spec_drafting or spec_review_requested → "Spec hasn't completed review. Run /pr-autopilot:review-spec first."
   • If spec_revising → "Spec has open P0 findings. Address them, re-run /review-spec, then come back."
   • If implementing or later → "Already approved. Nothing to do."

2. AskUserQuestion (MANDATORY — the interactive primitive that constitutes the gate):

   Generate the question with:

   • Question: "Approve spec for assignment '<id>'? This unlocks Write/Edit across the entire codebase for this branch."
   • Header: "Approve spec"
   • Options (single-select):
     • "✅ Approve — unlock TDD" with description listing aggregated review summary: "Reviewers: <list>. Findings: 0 P0, <M> P1, <K> P2. Spec: <path>"
     • "🔵 Show full spec first" with description: "Print the spec content to chat for review, then re-run /approve-spec."
     • "❌ Reject — back to spec_revising" with description: "Sub-status flips to spec_revising. Agent will need to address concerns and re-run /review-spec."

3. Branch on user response:

   If user picked "Show full spec": print spec file content to chat, exit (do NOT mutate state). User re-runs /approve-spec when ready.

   If user picked "Reject": update claim file subStatus: spec_revising, commit:

   git add .claude/assignment-claims/<id>.json
   git commit -m "chore(pr-autopilot): user rejected spec for <id> — back to spec_revising"
   

   Echo: "Spec rejected by user. Address concerns and re-run /pr-autopilot:review-spec then /approve-spec."

   If user picked "Approve":

   • Capture <iso-timestamp> and <user-identifier> ($CLAUDE_USER env, fallback git config user.email, fallback "<unknown-user>").
   • Update claim file:

     {
       "subStatus": "implementing",
       "approvedAt": "<iso>",
       "approvedBy": "<user-id>",
       "approvalContext": {
         "findings": { "p0": 0, "p1": <M>, "p2": <K> },
         "specFile": "<path>",
         "iterationAtApproval": <reviewIteration>
       }
     }
     

   • Commit:

     git add .claude/assignment-claims/<id>.json
     git commit -m "chore(pr-autopilot): approve spec for <id> by <user-id>"
     

4. Mirror to ExoVault: mcp__exo-vault__update_task(taskId, status='in_progress') (status doesn't change; description markdown gets new approval entry).

5. Echo to agent:

   ✅ Spec APPROVED by <user-id> at <iso>.
   
   Sub-status: implementing
   Hard gate: LIFTED — PreToolUse hook will allow Write/Edit outside specs/.
   
   Next steps:
   1. TDD red → green → refactor per CLAUDE.md rule #4
   2. When PR opens via `gh pr create`, run `/pr-autopilot:pr-opened <PR#>` to hand off to v0.4 step loop
   3. After PR merges, run `/pr-autopilot:finish <id>` to close the lifecycle
   

Why this is the gate

Three layers of defense (per spec §"Gate strength"):

1. AskUserQuestion is an interactive UI primitive. Agent CANNOT fabricate the user's click. The transcript shows the question text and the user's literal selection.
2. Claim file integrity: hook reads approvedAt; null → block coding states. Agent setting subStatus: implementing without approvedAt is blocked.
3. Audit trail: every transition is a git commit on the worktree branch. Any tampering is permanently logged.

This is strong, not bulletproof. Bulletproof would require cryptographic signing (overkill for v0.5).

Idempotency

Re-running after approval (subStatus: implementing already set):

• Print current approval metadata (who, when).
• No-op. Do not re-trigger AskUserQuestion (would be confusing).