Initial vibecoded proof of concept

.claude/commands/analyze.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+description: Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+Goal: Identify inconsistencies, duplications, ambiguities, and underspecified items across the three core artifacts (`spec.md`, `plan.md`, `tasks.md`) before implementation. This command MUST run only after `/tasks` has successfully produced a complete `tasks.md`.
+
+STRICTLY READ-ONLY: Do **not** modify any files. Output a structured analysis report. Offer an optional remediation plan (user must explicitly approve before any follow-up editing commands would be invoked manually).
+
+Constitution Authority: The project constitution (`.specify/memory/constitution.md`) is **non-negotiable** within this analysis scope. Constitution conflicts are automatically CRITICAL and require adjustment of the spec, plan, or tasks—not dilution, reinterpretation, or silent ignoring of the principle. If a principle itself needs to change, that must occur in a separate, explicit constitution update outside `/analyze`.
+
+Execution steps:
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` once from repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS. Derive absolute paths:
+   - SPEC = FEATURE_DIR/spec.md
+   - PLAN = FEATURE_DIR/plan.md
+   - TASKS = FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md
+   Abort with an error message if any required file is missing (instruct the user to run missing prerequisite command).
+
+2. Load artifacts:
+   - Parse spec.md sections: Overview/Context, Functional Requirements, Non-Functional Requirements, User Stories, Edge Cases (if present).
+   - Parse plan.md: Architecture/stack choices, Data Model references, Phases, Technical constraints.
+   - Parse tasks.md: Task IDs, descriptions, phase grouping, parallel markers [P], referenced file paths.
+   - Load constitution `.specify/memory/constitution.md` for principle validation.
+
+3. Build internal semantic models:
+   - Requirements inventory: Each functional + non-functional requirement with a stable key (derive slug based on imperative phrase; e.g., "User can upload file" -> `user-can-upload-file`).
+   - User story/action inventory.
+   - Task coverage mapping: Map each task to one or more requirements or stories (inference by keyword / explicit reference patterns like IDs or key phrases).
+   - Constitution rule set: Extract principle names and any MUST/SHOULD normative statements.
+
+4. Detection passes:
+   A. Duplication detection:
+      - Identify near-duplicate requirements. Mark lower-quality phrasing for consolidation.
+   B. Ambiguity detection:
+      - Flag vague adjectives (fast, scalable, secure, intuitive, robust) lacking measurable criteria.
+      - Flag unresolved placeholders (TODO, TKTK, ???, <placeholder>, etc.).
+   C. Underspecification:
+      - Requirements with verbs but missing object or measurable outcome.
+      - User stories missing acceptance criteria alignment.
+      - Tasks referencing files or components not defined in spec/plan.
+   D. Constitution alignment:
+      - Any requirement or plan element conflicting with a MUST principle.
+      - Missing mandated sections or quality gates from constitution.
+   E. Coverage gaps:
+      - Requirements with zero associated tasks.
+      - Tasks with no mapped requirement/story.
+      - Non-functional requirements not reflected in tasks (e.g., performance, security).
+   F. Inconsistency:
+      - Terminology drift (same concept named differently across files).
+      - Data entities referenced in plan but absent in spec (or vice versa).
+      - Task ordering contradictions (e.g., integration tasks before foundational setup tasks without dependency note).
+      - Conflicting requirements (e.g., one requires to use Next.js while other says to use Vue as the framework).
+
+5. Severity assignment heuristic:
+   - CRITICAL: Violates constitution MUST, missing core spec artifact, or requirement with zero coverage that blocks baseline functionality.
+   - HIGH: Duplicate or conflicting requirement, ambiguous security/performance attribute, untestable acceptance criterion.
+   - MEDIUM: Terminology drift, missing non-functional task coverage, underspecified edge case.
+   - LOW: Style/wording improvements, minor redundancy not affecting execution order.
+
+6. Produce a Markdown report (no file writes) with sections:
+
+   ### Specification Analysis Report
+   | ID | Category | Severity | Location(s) | Summary | Recommendation |
+   |----|----------|----------|-------------|---------|----------------|
+   | A1 | Duplication | HIGH | spec.md:L120-134 | Two similar requirements ... | Merge phrasing; keep clearer version |
+   (Add one row per finding; generate stable IDs prefixed by category initial.)
+
+   Additional subsections:
+   - Coverage Summary Table:
+     | Requirement Key | Has Task? | Task IDs | Notes |
+   - Constitution Alignment Issues (if any)
+   - Unmapped Tasks (if any)
+   - Metrics:
+     * Total Requirements
+     * Total Tasks
+     * Coverage % (requirements with >=1 task)
+     * Ambiguity Count
+     * Duplication Count
+     * Critical Issues Count
+
+7. At end of report, output a concise Next Actions block:
+   - If CRITICAL issues exist: Recommend resolving before `/implement`.
+   - If only LOW/MEDIUM: User may proceed, but provide improvement suggestions.
+   - Provide explicit command suggestions: e.g., "Run /specify with refinement", "Run /plan to adjust architecture", "Manually edit tasks.md to add coverage for 'performance-metrics'".
+
+8. Ask the user: "Would you like me to suggest concrete remediation edits for the top N issues?" (Do NOT apply them automatically.)
+
+Behavior rules:
+- NEVER modify files.
+- NEVER hallucinate missing sections—if absent, report them.
+- KEEP findings deterministic: if rerun without changes, produce consistent IDs and counts.
+- LIMIT total findings in the main table to 50; aggregate remainder in a summarized overflow note.
+- If zero issues found, emit a success report with coverage statistics and proceed recommendation.
+
+Context: $ARGUMENTS

.claude/commands/clarify.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+---
+description: Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+Goal: Detect and reduce ambiguity or missing decision points in the active feature specification and record the clarifications directly in the spec file.
+
+Note: This clarification workflow is expected to run (and be completed) BEFORE invoking `/plan`. If the user explicitly states they are skipping clarification (e.g., exploratory spike), you may proceed, but must warn that downstream rework risk increases.
+
+Execution steps:
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only` from repo root **once** (combined `--json --paths-only` mode / `-Json -PathsOnly`). Parse minimal JSON payload fields:
+   - `FEATURE_DIR`
+   - `FEATURE_SPEC`
+   - (Optionally capture `IMPL_PLAN`, `TASKS` for future chained flows.)
+   - If JSON parsing fails, abort and instruct user to re-run `/specify` or verify feature branch environment.
+
+2. Load the current spec file. Perform a structured ambiguity & coverage scan using this taxonomy. For each category, mark status: Clear / Partial / Missing. Produce an internal coverage map used for prioritization (do not output raw map unless no questions will be asked).
+
+   Functional Scope & Behavior:
+   - Core user goals & success criteria
+   - Explicit out-of-scope declarations
+   - User roles / personas differentiation
+
+   Domain & Data Model:
+   - Entities, attributes, relationships
+   - Identity & uniqueness rules
+   - Lifecycle/state transitions
+   - Data volume / scale assumptions
+
+   Interaction & UX Flow:
+   - Critical user journeys / sequences
+   - Error/empty/loading states
+   - Accessibility or localization notes
+
+   Non-Functional Quality Attributes:
+   - Performance (latency, throughput targets)
+   - Scalability (horizontal/vertical, limits)
+   - Reliability & availability (uptime, recovery expectations)
+   - Observability (logging, metrics, tracing signals)
+   - Security & privacy (authN/Z, data protection, threat assumptions)
+   - Compliance / regulatory constraints (if any)
+
+   Integration & External Dependencies:
+   - External services/APIs and failure modes
+   - Data import/export formats
+   - Protocol/versioning assumptions
+
+   Edge Cases & Failure Handling:
+   - Negative scenarios
+   - Rate limiting / throttling
+   - Conflict resolution (e.g., concurrent edits)
+
+   Constraints & Tradeoffs:
+   - Technical constraints (language, storage, hosting)
+   - Explicit tradeoffs or rejected alternatives
+
+   Terminology & Consistency:
+   - Canonical glossary terms
+   - Avoided synonyms / deprecated terms
+
+   Completion Signals:
+   - Acceptance criteria testability
+   - Measurable Definition of Done style indicators
+
+   Misc / Placeholders:
+   - TODO markers / unresolved decisions
+   - Ambiguous adjectives ("robust", "intuitive") lacking quantification
+
+   For each category with Partial or Missing status, add a candidate question opportunity unless:
+   - Clarification would not materially change implementation or validation strategy
+   - Information is better deferred to planning phase (note internally)
+
+3. Generate (internally) a prioritized queue of candidate clarification questions (maximum 5). Do NOT output them all at once. Apply these constraints:
+    - Maximum of 5 total questions across the whole session.
+    - Each question must be answerable with EITHER:
+       * A short multiple‑choice selection (2–5 distinct, mutually exclusive options), OR
+       * A one-word / short‑phrase answer (explicitly constrain: "Answer in <=5 words").
+   - Only include questions whose answers materially impact architecture, data modeling, task decomposition, test design, UX behavior, operational readiness, or compliance validation.
+   - Ensure category coverage balance: attempt to cover the highest impact unresolved categories first; avoid asking two low-impact questions when a single high-impact area (e.g., security posture) is unresolved.
+   - Exclude questions already answered, trivial stylistic preferences, or plan-level execution details (unless blocking correctness).
+   - Favor clarifications that reduce downstream rework risk or prevent misaligned acceptance tests.
+   - If more than 5 categories remain unresolved, select the top 5 by (Impact * Uncertainty) heuristic.
+
+4. Sequential questioning loop (interactive):
+    - Present EXACTLY ONE question at a time.
+    - For multiple‑choice questions render options as a Markdown table:
+
+       | Option | Description |
+       |--------|-------------|
+       | A | <Option A description> |
+       | B | <Option B description> |
+       | C | <Option C description> | (add D/E as needed up to 5)
+       | Short | Provide a different short answer (<=5 words) | (Include only if free-form alternative is appropriate)
+
+    - For short‑answer style (no meaningful discrete options), output a single line after the question: `Format: Short answer (<=5 words)`.
+    - After the user answers:
+       * Validate the answer maps to one option or fits the <=5 word constraint.
+       * If ambiguous, ask for a quick disambiguation (count still belongs to same question; do not advance).
+       * Once satisfactory, record it in working memory (do not yet write to disk) and move to the next queued question.
+    - Stop asking further questions when:
+       * All critical ambiguities resolved early (remaining queued items become unnecessary), OR
+       * User signals completion ("done", "good", "no more"), OR
+       * You reach 5 asked questions.
+    - Never reveal future queued questions in advance.
+    - If no valid questions exist at start, immediately report no critical ambiguities.
+
+5. Integration after EACH accepted answer (incremental update approach):
+    - Maintain in-memory representation of the spec (loaded once at start) plus the raw file contents.
+    - For the first integrated answer in this session:
+       * Ensure a `## Clarifications` section exists (create it just after the highest-level contextual/overview section per the spec template if missing).
+       * Under it, create (if not present) a `### Session YYYY-MM-DD` subheading for today.
+    - Append a bullet line immediately after acceptance: `- Q: <question> → A: <final answer>`.
+    - Then immediately apply the clarification to the most appropriate section(s):
+       * Functional ambiguity → Update or add a bullet in Functional Requirements.
+       * User interaction / actor distinction → Update User Stories or Actors subsection (if present) with clarified role, constraint, or scenario.
+       * Data shape / entities → Update Data Model (add fields, types, relationships) preserving ordering; note added constraints succinctly.
+       * Non-functional constraint → Add/modify measurable criteria in Non-Functional / Quality Attributes section (convert vague adjective to metric or explicit target).
+       * Edge case / negative flow → Add a new bullet under Edge Cases / Error Handling (or create such subsection if template provides placeholder for it).
+       * Terminology conflict → Normalize term across spec; retain original only if necessary by adding `(formerly referred to as "X")` once.
+    - If the clarification invalidates an earlier ambiguous statement, replace that statement instead of duplicating; leave no obsolete contradictory text.
+    - Save the spec file AFTER each integration to minimize risk of context loss (atomic overwrite).
+    - Preserve formatting: do not reorder unrelated sections; keep heading hierarchy intact.
+    - Keep each inserted clarification minimal and testable (avoid narrative drift).
+
+6. Validation (performed after EACH write plus final pass):
+   - Clarifications session contains exactly one bullet per accepted answer (no duplicates).
+   - Total asked (accepted) questions ≤ 5.
+   - Updated sections contain no lingering vague placeholders the new answer was meant to resolve.
+   - No contradictory earlier statement remains (scan for now-invalid alternative choices removed).
+   - Markdown structure valid; only allowed new headings: `## Clarifications`, `### Session YYYY-MM-DD`.
+   - Terminology consistency: same canonical term used across all updated sections.
+
+7. Write the updated spec back to `FEATURE_SPEC`.
+
+8. Report completion (after questioning loop ends or early termination):
+   - Number of questions asked & answered.
+   - Path to updated spec.
+   - Sections touched (list names).
+   - Coverage summary table listing each taxonomy category with Status: Resolved (was Partial/Missing and addressed), Deferred (exceeds question quota or better suited for planning), Clear (already sufficient), Outstanding (still Partial/Missing but low impact).
+   - If any Outstanding or Deferred remain, recommend whether to proceed to `/plan` or run `/clarify` again later post-plan.
+   - Suggested next command.
+
+Behavior rules:
+- If no meaningful ambiguities found (or all potential questions would be low-impact), respond: "No critical ambiguities detected worth formal clarification." and suggest proceeding.
+- If spec file missing, instruct user to run `/specify` first (do not create a new spec here).
+- Never exceed 5 total asked questions (clarification retries for a single question do not count as new questions).
+- Avoid speculative tech stack questions unless the absence blocks functional clarity.
+- Respect user early termination signals ("stop", "done", "proceed").
+ - If no questions asked due to full coverage, output a compact coverage summary (all categories Clear) then suggest advancing.
+ - If quota reached with unresolved high-impact categories remaining, explicitly flag them under Deferred with rationale.
+
+Context for prioritization: $ARGUMENTS

.claude/commands/constitution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+---
+description: Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs, ensuring all dependent templates stay in sync.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+You are updating the project constitution at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`. This file is a TEMPLATE containing placeholder tokens in square brackets (e.g. `[PROJECT_NAME]`, `[PRINCIPLE_1_NAME]`). Your job is to (a) collect/derive concrete values, (b) fill the template precisely, and (c) propagate any amendments across dependent artifacts.
+
+Follow this execution flow:
+
+1. Load the existing constitution template at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`.
+   - Identify every placeholder token of the form `[ALL_CAPS_IDENTIFIER]`.
+   **IMPORTANT**: The user might require less or more principles than the ones used in the template. If a number is specified, respect that - follow the general template. You will update the doc accordingly.
+
+2. Collect/derive values for placeholders:
+   - If user input (conversation) supplies a value, use it.
+   - Otherwise infer from existing repo context (README, docs, prior constitution versions if embedded).
+   - For governance dates: `RATIFICATION_DATE` is the original adoption date (if unknown ask or mark TODO), `LAST_AMENDED_DATE` is today if changes are made, otherwise keep previous.
+   - `CONSTITUTION_VERSION` must increment according to semantic versioning rules:
+     * MAJOR: Backward incompatible governance/principle removals or redefinitions.
+     * MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.
+     * PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.
+   - If version bump type ambiguous, propose reasoning before finalizing.
+
+3. Draft the updated constitution content:
+   - Replace every placeholder with concrete text (no bracketed tokens left except intentionally retained template slots that the project has chosen not to define yet—explicitly justify any left).
+   - Preserve heading hierarchy and comments can be removed once replaced unless they still add clarifying guidance.
+   - Ensure each Principle section: succinct name line, paragraph (or bullet list) capturing non‑negotiable rules, explicit rationale if not obvious.
+   - Ensure Governance section lists amendment procedure, versioning policy, and compliance review expectations.
+
+4. Consistency propagation checklist (convert prior checklist into active validations):
+   - Read `.specify/templates/plan-template.md` and ensure any "Constitution Check" or rules align with updated principles.
+   - Read `.specify/templates/spec-template.md` for scope/requirements alignment—update if constitution adds/removes mandatory sections or constraints.
+   - Read `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` and ensure task categorization reflects new or removed principle-driven task types (e.g., observability, versioning, testing discipline).
+   - Read each command file in `.specify/templates/commands/*.md` (including this one) to verify no outdated references (agent-specific names like CLAUDE only) remain when generic guidance is required.
+   - Read any runtime guidance docs (e.g., `README.md`, `docs/quickstart.md`, or agent-specific guidance files if present). Update references to principles changed.
+
+5. Produce a Sync Impact Report (prepend as an HTML comment at top of the constitution file after update):
+   - Version change: old → new
+   - List of modified principles (old title → new title if renamed)
+   - Added sections
+   - Removed sections
+   - Templates requiring updates (✅ updated / ⚠ pending) with file paths
+   - Follow-up TODOs if any placeholders intentionally deferred.
+
+6. Validation before final output:
+   - No remaining unexplained bracket tokens.
+   - Version line matches report.
+   - Dates ISO format YYYY-MM-DD.
+   - Principles are declarative, testable, and free of vague language ("should" → replace with MUST/SHOULD rationale where appropriate).
+
+7. Write the completed constitution back to `.specify/memory/constitution.md` (overwrite).
+
+8. Output a final summary to the user with:
+   - New version and bump rationale.
+   - Any files flagged for manual follow-up.
+   - Suggested commit message (e.g., `docs: amend constitution to vX.Y.Z (principle additions + governance update)`).
+
+Formatting & Style Requirements:
+- Use Markdown headings exactly as in the template (do not demote/promote levels).
+- Wrap long rationale lines to keep readability (<100 chars ideally) but do not hard enforce with awkward breaks.
+- Keep a single blank line between sections.
+- Avoid trailing whitespace.
+
+If the user supplies partial updates (e.g., only one principle revision), still perform validation and version decision steps.
+
+If critical info missing (e.g., ratification date truly unknown), insert `TODO(<FIELD_NAME>): explanation` and include in the Sync Impact Report under deferred items.
+
+Do not create a new template; always operate on the existing `.specify/memory/constitution.md` file.

.claude/commands/implement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+description: Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md
+---
+
+The user input can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --require-tasks --include-tasks` from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute.
+
+2. Load and analyze the implementation context:
+   - **REQUIRED**: Read tasks.md for the complete task list and execution plan
+   - **REQUIRED**: Read plan.md for tech stack, architecture, and file structure
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read data-model.md for entities and relationships
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read contracts/ for API specifications and test requirements
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read research.md for technical decisions and constraints
+   - **IF EXISTS**: Read quickstart.md for integration scenarios
+
+3. Parse tasks.md structure and extract:
+   - **Task phases**: Setup, Tests, Core, Integration, Polish
+   - **Task dependencies**: Sequential vs parallel execution rules
+   - **Task details**: ID, description, file paths, parallel markers [P]
+   - **Execution flow**: Order and dependency requirements
+
+4. Execute implementation following the task plan:
+   - **Phase-by-phase execution**: Complete each phase before moving to the next
+   - **Respect dependencies**: Run sequential tasks in order, parallel tasks [P] can run together  
+   - **Follow TDD approach**: Execute test tasks before their corresponding implementation tasks
+   - **File-based coordination**: Tasks affecting the same files must run sequentially
+   - **Validation checkpoints**: Verify each phase completion before proceeding
+
+5. Implementation execution rules:
+   - **Setup first**: Initialize project structure, dependencies, configuration
+   - **Tests before code**: If you need to write tests for contracts, entities, and integration scenarios
+   - **Core development**: Implement models, services, CLI commands, endpoints
+   - **Integration work**: Database connections, middleware, logging, external services
+   - **Polish and validation**: Unit tests, performance optimization, documentation
+
+6. Progress tracking and error handling:
+   - Report progress after each completed task
+   - Halt execution if any non-parallel task fails
+   - For parallel tasks [P], continue with successful tasks, report failed ones
+   - Provide clear error messages with context for debugging
+   - Suggest next steps if implementation cannot proceed
+   - **IMPORTANT** For completed tasks, make sure to mark the task off as [X] in the tasks file.
+
+7. Completion validation:
+   - Verify all required tasks are completed
+   - Check that implemented features match the original specification
+   - Validate that tests pass and coverage meets requirements
+   - Confirm the implementation follows the technical plan
+   - Report final status with summary of completed work
+
+Note: This command assumes a complete task breakdown exists in tasks.md. If tasks are incomplete or missing, suggest running `/tasks` first to regenerate the task list.

.claude/commands/plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+---
+description: Execute the implementation planning workflow using the plan template to generate design artifacts.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+Given the implementation details provided as an argument, do this:
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/setup-plan.sh --json` from the repo root and parse JSON for FEATURE_SPEC, IMPL_PLAN, SPECS_DIR, BRANCH. All future file paths must be absolute.
+   - BEFORE proceeding, inspect FEATURE_SPEC for a `## Clarifications` section with at least one `Session` subheading. If missing or clearly ambiguous areas remain (vague adjectives, unresolved critical choices), PAUSE and instruct the user to run `/clarify` first to reduce rework. Only continue if: (a) Clarifications exist OR (b) an explicit user override is provided (e.g., "proceed without clarification"). Do not attempt to fabricate clarifications yourself.
+2. Read and analyze the feature specification to understand:
+   - The feature requirements and user stories
+   - Functional and non-functional requirements
+   - Success criteria and acceptance criteria
+   - Any technical constraints or dependencies mentioned
+
+3. Read the constitution at `.specify/memory/constitution.md` to understand constitutional requirements.
+
+4. Execute the implementation plan template:
+   - Load `.specify/templates/plan-template.md` (already copied to IMPL_PLAN path)
+   - Set Input path to FEATURE_SPEC
+   - Run the Execution Flow (main) function steps 1-9
+   - The template is self-contained and executable
+   - Follow error handling and gate checks as specified
+   - Let the template guide artifact generation in $SPECS_DIR:
+     * Phase 0 generates research.md
+     * Phase 1 generates data-model.md, contracts/, quickstart.md
+     * Phase 2 generates tasks.md
+   - Incorporate user-provided details from arguments into Technical Context: $ARGUMENTS
+   - Update Progress Tracking as you complete each phase
+
+5. Verify execution completed:
+   - Check Progress Tracking shows all phases complete
+   - Ensure all required artifacts were generated
+   - Confirm no ERROR states in execution
+
+6. Report results with branch name, file paths, and generated artifacts.
+
+Use absolute paths with the repository root for all file operations to avoid path issues.

.claude/commands/specify.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+description: Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+The text the user typed after `/specify` in the triggering message **is** the feature description. Assume you always have it available in this conversation even if `$ARGUMENTS` appears literally below. Do not ask the user to repeat it unless they provided an empty command.
+
+Given that feature description, do this:
+
+1. Run the script `.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh --json "$ARGUMENTS"` from repo root and parse its JSON output for BRANCH_NAME and SPEC_FILE. All file paths must be absolute.
+  **IMPORTANT** You must only ever run this script once. The JSON is provided in the terminal as output - always refer to it to get the actual content you're looking for.
+2. Load `.specify/templates/spec-template.md` to understand required sections.
+3. Write the specification to SPEC_FILE using the template structure, replacing placeholders with concrete details derived from the feature description (arguments) while preserving section order and headings.
+4. Report completion with branch name, spec file path, and readiness for the next phase.
+
+Note: The script creates and checks out the new branch and initializes the spec file before writing.

.claude/commands/tasks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+description: Generate an actionable, dependency-ordered tasks.md for the feature based on available design artifacts.
+---
+
+The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you **MUST** consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).
+
+User input:
+
+$ARGUMENTS
+
+1. Run `.specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json` from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute.
+2. Load and analyze available design documents:
+   - Always read plan.md for tech stack and libraries
+   - IF EXISTS: Read data-model.md for entities
+   - IF EXISTS: Read contracts/ for API endpoints
+   - IF EXISTS: Read research.md for technical decisions
+   - IF EXISTS: Read quickstart.md for test scenarios
+
+   Note: Not all projects have all documents. For example:
+   - CLI tools might not have contracts/
+   - Simple libraries might not need data-model.md
+   - Generate tasks based on what's available
+
+3. Generate tasks following the template:
+   - Use `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` as the base
+   - Replace example tasks with actual tasks based on:
+     * **Setup tasks**: Project init, dependencies, linting
+     * **Test tasks [P]**: One per contract, one per integration scenario
+     * **Core tasks**: One per entity, service, CLI command, endpoint
+     * **Integration tasks**: DB connections, middleware, logging
+     * **Polish tasks [P]**: Unit tests, performance, docs
+
+4. Task generation rules:
+   - Each contract file → contract test task marked [P]
+   - Each entity in data-model → model creation task marked [P]
+   - Each endpoint → implementation task (not parallel if shared files)
+   - Each user story → integration test marked [P]
+   - Different files = can be parallel [P]
+   - Same file = sequential (no [P])
+
+5. Order tasks by dependencies:
+   - Setup before everything
+   - Tests before implementation (TDD)
+   - Models before services
+   - Services before endpoints
+   - Core before integration
+   - Everything before polish
+
+6. Include parallel execution examples:
+   - Group [P] tasks that can run together
+   - Show actual Task agent commands
+
+7. Create FEATURE_DIR/tasks.md with:
+   - Correct feature name from implementation plan
+   - Numbered tasks (T001, T002, etc.)
+   - Clear file paths for each task
+   - Dependency notes
+   - Parallel execution guidance
+
+Context for task generation: $ARGUMENTS
+
+The tasks.md should be immediately executable - each task must be specific enough that an LLM can complete it without additional context.