Creates specs before coding to clarify requirements and ensure successful project execution.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionspec-driven-developmentExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches spec-driven-development from OWNER/REPO and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate spec-driven-development. Access via /spec-driven-development in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
5
total installs
5
this week
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
5
installs
5
this week
—
stars
| name | spec-driven-development |
| description | Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea. |
Write a structured specification before writing any code. The spec is the shared source of truth between you and the human engineer — it defines what we're building, why, and how we'll know it's done. Code without a spec is guessing.
When NOT to use: Single-line fixes, typo corrections, or changes where requirements are unambiguous and self-contained.
Spec-driven development has four phases. Do not advance to the next phase until the current one is validated.
SPECIFY ──→ PLAN ──→ TASKS ──→ IMPLEMENT
│ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Human Human Human Human
reviews reviews reviews reviews
Start with a high-level vision. Ask the human clarifying questions until requirements are concrete.
Surface assumptions immediately. Before writing any spec content, list what you're assuming:
ASSUMPTIONS I'M MAKING:
1. This is a web application (not native mobile)
2. Authentication uses session-based cookies (not JWT)
3. The database is PostgreSQL (based on existing Prisma schema)
4. We're targeting modern browsers only (no IE11)
→ Correct me now or I'll proceed with these.
Don't silently fill in ambiguous requirements. The spec's entire purpose is to surface misunderstandings before code gets written — assumptions are the most dangerous form of misunderstanding.
Write a spec document covering these six core areas:
Objective — What are we building and why? Who is the user? What does success look like?
Commands — Full executable commands with flags, not just tool names.
Build: npm run build
Test: npm test -- --coverage
Lint: npm run lint --fix
Dev: npm run dev
Project Structure — Where source code lives, where tests go, where docs belong.
src/ → Application source code
src/components → React components
src/lib → Shared utilities
tests/ → Unit and integration tests
e2e/ → End-to-end tests
docs/ → Documentation
Code Style — One real code snippet showing your style beats three paragraphs describing it. Include naming conventions, formatting rules, and examples of good output.
Testing Strategy — What framework, where tests live, coverage expectations, which test levels for which concerns.
Boundaries — Three-tier system:
Spec template:
# Spec: [Project/Feature Name]
## Objective
[What we're building and why. User stories or acceptance criteria.]
## Tech Stack
[Framework, language, key dependencies with versions]
## Commands
[Build, test, lint, dev — full commands]
## Project Structure
[Directory layout with descriptions]
## Code Style
[Example snippet + key conventions]
## Testing Strategy
[Framework, test locations, coverage requirements, test levels]
## Boundaries
- Always: [...]
- Ask first: [...]
- Never: [...]
## Success Criteria
[How we'll know this is done — specific, testable conditions]
## Open Questions
[Anything unresolved that needs human input]
Reframe instructions as success criteria. When receiving vague requirements, translate them into concrete conditions:
REQUIREMENT: "Make the dashboard faster"
REFRAMED SUCCESS CRITERIA:
- Dashboard LCP < 2.5s on 4G connection
- Initial data load completes in < 500ms
- No layout shift during load (CLS < 0.1)
→ Are these the right targets?
This lets you loop, retry, and problem-solve toward a clear goal rather than guessing what "faster" means.
With the validated spec, generate a technical implementation plan:
The plan should be reviewable: the human should be able to read it and say "yes, that's the right approach" or "no, change X."
Break the plan into discrete, implementable tasks:
Task template:
- [ ] Task: [Description]
- Acceptance: [What must be true when done]
- Verify: [How to confirm — test command, build, manual check]
- Files: [Which files will be touched]
Execute tasks one at a time following incremental-implementation and test-driven-development skills. Use context-engineering to load the right spec sections and source files at each step rather than flooding the agent with the entire spec.
The spec is a living document, not a one-time artifact:
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "This is simple, I don't need a spec" | Simple tasks don't need long specs, but they still need acceptance criteria. A two-line spec is fine. |
| "I'll write the spec after I code it" | That's documentation, not specification. The spec's value is in forcing clarity before code. |
| "The spec will slow us down" | A 15-minute spec prevents hours of rework. Waterfall in 15 minutes beats debugging in 15 hours. |
| "Requirements will change anyway" | That's why the spec is a living document. An outdated spec is still better than no spec. |
| "The user knows what they want" | Even clear requests have implicit assumptions. The spec surfaces those assumptions. |
Before proceeding to implementation, confirm:
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
mattpocock/skills
greedychipmunk/agent-skills
rshankras/claude-code-apple-skills
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
oimiragieo/agent-studio
mrgoonie/claudekit-skills
Keeps context tight: spec-driven-development is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
I recommend spec-driven-development for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Registry listing for spec-driven-development matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
spec-driven-development reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Useful defaults in spec-driven-development — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
spec-driven-development has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: spec-driven-development is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
spec-driven-development is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
spec-driven-development has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Keeps context tight: spec-driven-development is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
showing 1-10 of 28