Overhaul extraction pipeline with new TradeItem model, conversation flow, and dedicated extraction endpoint. Add sidebar navigation with NavMenu component and landing page. Introduce few-shot prompting service and tests. Add prompt settings and email upload specs. Update OpenSpec tooling with improved export-spec and extract-feature commands. Archive completed changes and export full specs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
228 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
228 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: "OPSX: Export Spec"
|
|
description: Export a feature as a compact, portable spec for AI-assisted reimplementation on a sandboxed machine
|
|
category: Workflow
|
|
tags: [workflow, portability, experimental]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Export a feature as a portable spec for AI-assisted reimplementation.
|
|
|
|
Instead of retyping code, you retype a compact spec. The AI on the sandbox generates the code.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Input**: The argument after `/opsx:export-spec` is a change name (active or archived), or a description of the feature. If omitted, prompt for selection.
|
|
|
|
**Steps**
|
|
|
|
1. **Identify the source feature**
|
|
|
|
Same selection logic as `/opsx:extract-feature`:
|
|
- Check active changes and archive for the change name
|
|
- If not found, prompt with **AskUserQuestion tool**
|
|
- Read all artifacts: `proposal.md`, `design.md`, `tasks.md`, specs
|
|
|
|
2. **Analyze dependency chain (cumulative mode)**
|
|
|
|
Features often build on each other. Before generating the spec, determine
|
|
what the target feature depends on.
|
|
|
|
a. Read all archived change proposals in `openspec/changes/archive/` (sorted by date).
|
|
b. Build a dependency graph: what does the target require? What's superseded?
|
|
c. Ask the user:
|
|
> "This feature depends on earlier changes. How should I scope the spec?"
|
|
> 1. **Cumulative** — include all foundation (recommended for fresh codebase)
|
|
> 2. **Delta only** — just this change (target already has foundation)
|
|
> 3. **Custom** — pick which dependencies to include
|
|
|
|
d. In cumulative mode: merge into one coherent spec, skip superseded components.
|
|
e. In delta mode: add an "Assumes" section listing what must already exist.
|
|
|
|
3. **Read the actual implementation**
|
|
|
|
Read all source files created or modified by this feature (and dependencies if cumulative).
|
|
The spec must reflect what was actually built, not just what was planned.
|
|
|
|
4. **Determine the target context**
|
|
|
|
Use **AskUserQuestion tool** to ask:
|
|
> "Tell me about the target codebase:
|
|
> 1. Project name / root namespace
|
|
> 2. Existing stack (ASP.NET Core? Blazor? MudBlazor?)
|
|
> 3. Does it already have any of these? (controllers, DI setup, chat endpoint)
|
|
> 4. Does the target have OpenSpec? GitHub Copilot? Claude Code?"
|
|
|
|
This shapes what the spec assumes vs what it must specify.
|
|
|
|
5. **Capture the target GUI layout**
|
|
|
|
If the feature has a UI component, the spec MUST include the target's layout context.
|
|
Without it, the AI will generate components that conflict with the existing shell.
|
|
|
|
Ask the user:
|
|
> "Does the target app have an existing GUI shell? If so, share:
|
|
> 1. A **screenshot** (drag/drop or file path) — most information-dense
|
|
> 2. Or describe: AppBar (height? Dense?), Sidebar/Drawer (width? toggled?),
|
|
> MainContent area, any fixed elements"
|
|
|
|
If a screenshot is provided, extract:
|
|
- AppBar type and height (Dense=48px, Regular=64px, custom)
|
|
- Sidebar/Drawer presence, width, toggle behavior
|
|
- Main content area constraints
|
|
- Existing navigation items
|
|
|
|
Then ask:
|
|
> "How should this feature integrate into the target?
|
|
> 1. Feature name in the target (e.g., 'Sales Assistant' not 'Chat')
|
|
> 2. Route path (e.g., `/sales-assistant`)
|
|
> 3. Navigation: new sidebar item? AppBar button? Floating panel?"
|
|
|
|
Generate an **ASCII layout diagram** showing exactly where the feature renders,
|
|
and include it in both the spec and the OpenSpec design.md.
|
|
|
|
6. **Generate the portable spec**
|
|
|
|
Create a single markdown document that is:
|
|
- **Compact**: Target ~30-50 lines for a medium feature
|
|
- **Precise**: Unambiguous enough for an AI to implement correctly
|
|
- **Self-contained**: No references to external files or repos
|
|
- **Stack-aware**: Uses the right terminology for the target stack
|
|
|
|
Structure:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Feature: <Name>
|
|
## Target: <project name> (<stack>)
|
|
|
|
## Assumes
|
|
<what must already exist on the target>
|
|
|
|
## Integration Rule
|
|
This feature is additive only. DO NOT modify existing files, components,
|
|
services, or patterns in the target. If the target already has an equivalent
|
|
service, use it instead of creating a new one. If a task conflicts with
|
|
existing target code, skip it and note the conflict. Existing applicationX
|
|
code takes precedence over this spec in all cases.
|
|
|
|
## Target Layout
|
|
<ASCII diagram showing the target app shell and where this feature renders>
|
|
<AppBar height, Sidebar width, MainContent constraints>
|
|
<Feature name, route, navigation integration point>
|
|
|
|
## Packages
|
|
<list with versions>
|
|
|
|
## Architecture
|
|
<2-3 sentence overview>
|
|
|
|
## Components
|
|
### <Component>: <path hint>
|
|
- <What it does>
|
|
- <Key behavior>
|
|
- <Interface/contract>
|
|
|
|
## Contracts
|
|
<API shapes, model definitions — things that MUST be exact>
|
|
|
|
## Critical Patterns
|
|
<Exact code snippets for traps the AI will otherwise get wrong>
|
|
<Show the POSITIVE pattern to copy, not just "don't use X">
|
|
<Include WHY — the mechanism behind the trap>
|
|
|
|
## Wiring
|
|
<DI registration, middleware order, config keys — dependency order>
|
|
|
|
## Behavior
|
|
<Non-obvious requirements>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Compression strategies:**
|
|
- Use bullet points, not prose
|
|
- Specify contracts precisely (field names, types, API shapes)
|
|
- Let the AI infer standard patterns
|
|
- Only specify non-obvious behavior
|
|
- Omit anything the AI would do by default
|
|
|
|
7. **Estimate typing effort**
|
|
|
|
Count characters in the spec. Compare to the code recipe equivalent.
|
|
Show the compression ratio.
|
|
|
|
8. **Optionally generate an OpenSpec-compatible version**
|
|
|
|
If the target has OpenSpec, also generate:
|
|
- A **config.yaml** template — adapted context for the target project, with placeholders
|
|
- A `proposal.md` (minimal — 5-10 lines)
|
|
- A `design.md` — compact architectural decisions and rationale (why SSE vs WebSocket,
|
|
why typed client vs raw, why per-request plugin import, etc.). Without this the AI
|
|
has tasks but no rationale, and will guess wrong on non-obvious decisions.
|
|
- A `tasks.md` (implementation steps)
|
|
- **Setup instructions** at the top: step-by-step procedure for the target machine
|
|
(create config.yaml, save proposal/design/tasks, run `/opsx:apply`, reference the portable spec)
|
|
|
|
Save as: `openspec/exports/<change-name>-openspec.md`
|
|
|
|
9. **Write the output**
|
|
|
|
Save to: `openspec/exports/<change-name>-spec.md`
|
|
Display the full content for review.
|
|
|
|
**Guardrails**
|
|
- Prioritize precision over brevity — ambiguity wastes more time than length
|
|
- Always include exact field names, types, and API shapes
|
|
- Include non-obvious gotchas (like /v1 base URL requirements)
|
|
- Mental test: could an AI implement this correctly without seeing the original code?
|
|
- If too complex for ~50 lines, split into multiple specs by component
|
|
- Always show the compression ratio
|
|
- Must be readable when printed in monospace — no wide tables or long lines
|
|
- In cumulative mode, the spec must read as one coherent feature, not a list of changes
|
|
- Skip superseded components — always describe the latest version
|
|
- In delta mode, add an "Assumes" section so the target AI knows what must exist
|
|
- In the output header, note which changes were included and which were skipped
|
|
|
|
**Integration rule: adapt, never modify**
|
|
|
|
The exported feature is a GUEST in the target application. Existing code, patterns,
|
|
and conventions in the target take absolute precedence. The spec must include an
|
|
explicit "Integration Rule" section that states:
|
|
|
|
- **DO NOT** modify existing files, components, layouts, services, or routing in the target
|
|
- **DO NOT** replace existing patterns with patterns from the source project
|
|
(e.g., if the target uses a different HttpClient pattern, use theirs)
|
|
- **DO** add new files, new nav links, new routes, new DI registrations
|
|
- **DO** conform to the target's existing code style, naming conventions, and project structure
|
|
- If a task conflicts with existing target code, **stop and notify the user** — the user decides whether to skip, adapt, or redesign
|
|
- If the target already has an equivalent service (e.g., its own markdown renderer,
|
|
HttpClient wrapper), **use the existing one** instead of creating a new one
|
|
|
|
When generating the spec, actively identify potential conflict points and add
|
|
explicit "Adapt to target" notes. Common conflicts:
|
|
- Program.cs / DI registration style
|
|
- HttpClient patterns (typed client vs named client vs raw)
|
|
- Layout components (don't restructure MainLayout)
|
|
- CSS approach (isolation vs global vs utility classes)
|
|
- Error handling patterns
|
|
- Navigation structure
|
|
|
|
**Anti-patterns learned from field use**
|
|
|
|
These patterns cause the target AI to deviate from the spec even when the spec mentions them:
|
|
|
|
1. **"Don't use X" warnings get ignored.** AIs skip parenthetical negations buried in
|
|
bullet lists because their training data overwhelmingly uses the standard pattern.
|
|
Instead: add a **"Critical Patterns"** section with the exact code snippet to copy.
|
|
Show the positive pattern, not just the negative warning. E.g., instead of
|
|
"don't use EndOfStream", show the exact `while ((line = await ReadLineAsync()) != null)` loop.
|
|
|
|
2. **Layout values that depend on other components break silently.** Magic numbers like
|
|
`calc(100vh - 48px)` assume a specific AppBar height. Instead: document the dependency
|
|
explicitly ("48px = MudAppBar Dense height"), suggest using a CSS variable as fallback,
|
|
and note mobile viewport gotchas (`100vh` vs `100dvh`).
|
|
|
|
3. **Platform-specific runtime traps need the WHY.** Saying "don't use EndOfStream" is
|
|
not enough — the AI needs to know WHY (synchronous peek on an async-only stream).
|
|
When the AI understands the mechanism, it's less likely to reach for an equivalent
|
|
pattern that has the same problem.
|
|
|
|
ARGUMENTS: based on the above
|