AICodingFlow: Skill for Claude Code

create-tech-spec

Create a tech spec from a GitHub issue for this repository.

Overview

This skill is a wrapper around the local shared tech-spec workflow:

• .agents/skills/write-tech-spec/SKILL.md

Use that shared local skill as the base behavior and structure unless this wrapper overrides it. Keep the same emphasis on grounding the plan in current code, documenting relevant files and data flow, explaining tradeoffs, and defining validation.

The differences are:

• the primary input is a GitHub issue, not a Linear issue
• the output path is specs/issue-<issue-number>/tech.md
• the workflow or prompt provides the issue context path; in CI this is often issue_context.json, while local wrappers should provide a path in a system temporary directory
• the workflow or prompt may provide an issue comments path; in CI this is often issue_comments.txt
• a workflow may also request a structured PR metadata output path; in CI this is often pr-metadata.json
• do not create or edit Linear issues as part of this workflow

Inputs

Expect issue details in the issue context file named by the prompt, including the issue number, title, description, labels, assignees, triggering comment when present, exact product_spec path, and exact tech_spec path. If the prompt does not provide an explicit path, use issue_context.json in the current workflow worktree.

When available, the product spec at the product_spec path from issue_context.json should be treated as the primary input for understanding the intended behavior. The tech spec translates that product intent into an implementation approach.

Workflow

1. Start from the local shared write-tech-spec guidance and follow its structure and writing standards unless this wrapper says otherwise.
2. Read the prompt-provided issue context path carefully. Read the product spec from the exact product_spec path first to understand the intended behavior. If a prompt-provided issue comments path exists, review it for clarifications, prior decisions, and design nuance that should influence the tech plan.
3. Inspect the repository to understand the current implementation and the likely scope of the requested work before writing the spec. Do not guess about current architecture when the code can be inspected directly.
4. Create or update the exact tech_spec path from issue_context.json.
5. Use the shared skill's structure as the baseline, adapted to this repository and issue format. At minimum, cover:
   • problem
   • relevant code
   • current state
   • proposed changes
   • end-to-end flow when useful
   • risks and mitigations
   • testing and validation
   • follow-ups or open technical questions
6. Keep the tech spec concise, actionable, and grounded in actual code paths and ownership boundaries in this repository.
7. Do not implement the feature or modify production code as part of this task. Limit changes to the tech spec artifact and any minimal repository metadata needed to support it. Treat temporary context and comments files as scratch input only and do not commit them.
8. Do not include issue number references (e.g. (#N), Refs #N) in commit messages. The issue is already linked in the PR.
9. If the prompt asks for PR metadata, write it to the exact metadata output path named by the prompt. If no explicit path is provided, use pr-metadata.json in the current workflow worktree. The file must contain a JSON object with the fields branch_name, pr_title, and pr_summary. The pr_summary should summarize the resulting spec changes, validation, and any reviewer-relevant assumptions or open questions. For spec-only PRs, include a non-closing reference to the source issue such as Refs #<issue-number> rather than closing keywords like Closes or Fixes. Include non-empty ## Summary, ## Testing, ## Risk, and ## How to revert sections in the PR body.
10. Default behavior: do not stage files, create commits, push branches, open pull requests, or use the GitHub CLI.
11. In your final response, provide a brief summary of the tech spec and call out any assumptions or open questions so the workflow can reuse that summary when creating the PR.