lindoelio/spec-driven-steroids/spec-driven-technical-designer

Spec-Driven Technical Design Skill

Write a design.md document that translates approved requirements into a clear, traceable technical design.

Your job is to produce a design artifact that:

• explains how the requirements will be delivered without turning into an implementation plan
• preserves traceability from design elements to requirements
• reflects existing repository patterns before proposing new structure
• uses valid, minimal Mermaid diagrams that are easy to verify and maintain

Default path: read approved requirements, classify the change, design only the sections that add value, validate the design, save design.md, and return a short review-ready summary.

Read references/design-section-guide.md when you need help selecting optional sections, keeping diagrams minimal, or correcting weak traceability coverage.

Shared Protocol

Follow the Context Preflight and Phase Gate protocols in the spec-driven-shared-protocol skill's references/shared-protocol.md.

Per-Phase Todo List

When this skill begins execution, create a todo list containing the following items in pending state. This list is scoped to this phase only — do not carry over items from any previous phase.

1. Read approved requirements.md
2. Read project guidelines
3. Retrieve contextual memory (architecture)
4. Inspect existing codebase patterns
5. Classify change type
6. Design architecture with design elements
7. Save design.md
8. Run CLI validation (sds validate design)
9. Complete quality bar self-check
10. Fix validation failures (if any)
11. Declare verdict

Progress Rules

• Mark an item in_progress when starting that work step.
• Mark an item completed only after the work step has been verified.
• Do not mark an item completed until verification passes.
• Create a fresh list when this phase begins; do not append to a prior phase's list.

Output File

.specs/changes/<slug>/design.md

IMPORTANT: Only design.md is a valid spec document name for design. The spec-driven workflow strictly requires exactly three document types: requirements.md, design.md, and tasks.md.

Required Document Structure

See the spec-driven-shared-protocol skill's references/document-templates.md for the design document template.

Change Type Classification

Choose one primary change type and use it to determine depth and section inclusion.

Required Sections

These sections must always be present in a full design document:

• ## Overview
• ## System Architecture
• ## Code Anatomy
• ## Repository Context Evidence
• ## Traceability Matrix

Optional Section Rules

Include a section only when it adds design value. Do not add empty placeholders.

If ## Impact Analysis is included, include ### Testing Requirements. Add ### Breaking Changes only when contracts change, ### Dependencies only when relevant, ### Risk Assessment for medium/high-risk changes, and ### Rollback Plan for deployments/migrations.

Design Rules

• Use DES-<number> identifiers starting at DES-1.
• Every design element must have:
• a ### DES-N: Title heading
• a short description of responsibility and boundaries
• at least one Mermaid diagram
• an _Implements: REQ-X.Y_ line
• Every referenced requirement must exist in requirements.md.
• Use ## Code Anatomy to describe implementation touchpoints and discovery scope, not a closed inventory unless explicitly marked Coverage: Exhaustive.
• ## Code Anatomy must include ### Coverage Declaration, ### Required Touchpoints, ### Known Impact Surface, ### Discovery Targets, and ### Out of Scope.
• ### Coverage Declaration must use exactly one value: Coverage: Exhaustive, Coverage: Representative, or Coverage: Initial Discovery Only.
• Use ### Required Touchpoints for files/directories that must change. Existing paths must be verified by Glob or Read; proposed paths must be labeled New.
• Use ### Known Impact Surface for files/directories that must be considered but may not change.
• Use ### Discovery Targets for searches, patterns, commands, or areas that must be investigated during task decomposition.
• Use ### Out of Scope for areas explicitly excluded from the change.
• If coverage is not Exhaustive, state that Code Anatomy is not a completion checklist and that every Discovery Target must be executed during Phase 3 before tasks.md is written.
• Use ## Traceability Matrix to map every DES-* element to requirements.
• Prefer architecture decisions over implementation details.
• Do not include task breakdowns, code patches, or step-by-step instructions.
• Resolve all placeholders before returning output.

Mermaid Rules

Prefer simple, valid Mermaid over visually rich diagrams.

Safe Defaults

Prefer diagram types: flowchart, sequenceDiagram, classDiagram, erDiagram. Use the simplest diagram type that communicates the design. Keep one primary concern per diagram. Use short labels and clear edge text.

Avoid Breakage

• Start every diagram with the diagram type declaration on the first non-empty line.
• Avoid advanced directives, frontmatter config, themes, or layout tuning unless necessary.
• Avoid unsupported features, comments inside Mermaid blocks, or unquoted risky labels like "End".
• If syntax is uncertain, simplify the diagram instead of adding more detail.

Clarification Policy

Ask a clarifying question only if ambiguity would materially change system boundaries, integration design, security posture, data model design, or scaling approach.

When to Ask

• External integration details are missing
• Security constraints materially affect architecture
• Data persistence or contract shape is unclear
• Scope is too broad for one coherent design document

When NOT to Ask

• Existing code patterns provide a reasonable default
• Ambiguity is implementation-level rather than architectural

Validation and Recovery

When sds validate design returns errors:

1. Add missing required sections
2. Fix Mermaid syntax by simplifying diagrams first
3. Add missing DES-* headings
4. Add or fix _Implements: REQ-X.Y_ links
5. Ensure all referenced requirements exist

After 3 failed validation attempts:

1. Summarize remaining errors
2. Ask: "Should I proceed with best-effort corrections?"

Missing Guidelines Fallback

If project guideline files do not exist:

• Infer conventions from nearby code and existing repository structure
• Default to simpler architecture rather than introducing new abstractions
• Record the missing guideline files in ## Repository Context Evidence

Quality Bar (Self-Check)

Before returning the design, verify:

• [ ] Document starts with # Design Document
• [ ] ## Overview, ## System Architecture, ## Code Anatomy, ## Repository Context Evidence, and ## Traceability Matrix are present
• [ ] ## Code Anatomy declares Coverage: Exhaustive, Coverage: Representative, or Coverage: Initial Discovery Only
• [ ] Non-exhaustive Code Anatomy includes actionable discovery targets and warns that the list is not a completion checklist
• [ ] Every design element uses ### DES-N: Title
• [ ] Every design element includes a Mermaid diagram
• [ ] Every design element includes _Implements: REQ-X.Y_
• [ ] All requirement references exist in requirements.md
• [ ] Mermaid diagrams are simple and syntactically safe
• [ ] No placeholders remain

Output Requirements

Write .specs/changes/<slug>/design.md before requesting review. Keep the design concise but complete enough for task decomposition. Prefer validator-compatible structure over decorative formatting.

Response Behavior

If enough information is available, produce the full design.md content directly.

If material ambiguity blocks a sound design, ask a short clarification first. Do not produce a low-confidence architecture.

Contextual Stewardship Integration

At the start of this phase, invoke the contextual-stewardship skill to retrieve established architectural patterns:

Invoke: contextual-stewardship skill
Action: retrieve
Query: architecture

Things To Avoid

• Creating additional files in .specs/changes/<slug>/. Only write design.md for this phase.