jingsewu/open-wes

Implement tasks from an OpenSpec change.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. Select the change

   If a name is provided, use it. Otherwise:

   • Infer from conversation context if the user mentioned a change
   • Auto-select if only one active change exists
   • If ambiguous, run openspec list --json to get available changes and use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select

   Always announce: "Using change: " and how to override (e.g., /opsx:apply <other>).

2. Check status to understand the schema

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • Which artifact contains the tasks (typically "tasks" for spec-driven, check status for others)

3. Get apply instructions

   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
   

   This returns:

   • Context file paths (varies by schema - could be proposal/specs/design/tasks or spec/tests/implementation/docs)
   • Progress (total, complete, remaining)
   • Task list with status
   • Dynamic instruction based on current state

   Handle states:

   • If state: "blocked" (missing artifacts): show message, suggest using openspec-continue-change
   • If state: "all_done": congratulate, suggest archive
   • Otherwise: proceed to implementation

4. Read context files

   Read the files listed in contextFiles from the apply instructions output. The files depend on the schema being used:

   • spec-driven: proposal, specs, design, tasks
   • Other schemas: follow the contextFiles from CLI output

5. Show current progress

   Display:

   • Schema being used
   • Progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • Remaining tasks overview
   • Dynamic instruction from CLI

6. Implement tasks (loop until done or blocked)

   For each pending task:

   • Show which task is being worked on
   • Make the code changes required
   • Keep changes minimal and focused
   • Mark task complete in the tasks file: - [ ] → - [x]
   • Continue to next task

   Pause if:

   • Task is unclear → ask for clarification
   • Implementation reveals a design issue → suggest updating artifacts
   • Error or blocker encountered → report and wait for guidance
   • User interrupts

7. On completion or pause, show status

   Display:

   • Tasks completed this session
   • Overall progress: "N/M tasks complete"
   • If all done: suggest archive
   • If paused: explain why and wait for guidance

Output During Implementation

## Implementing: <change-name> (schema: <schema-name>)

Working on task 3/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Working on task 4/7: <task description>
[...implementation happening...]
✓ Task complete

Output On Completion

## Implementation Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 7/7 tasks complete ✓

### Completed This Session
- [x] Task 1
- [x] Task 2
...

All tasks complete! Ready to archive this change.

Output On Pause (Issue Encountered)

## Implementation Paused

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Progress:** 4/7 tasks complete

### Issue Encountered
<description of the issue>

**Options:**
1. <option 1>
2. <option 2>
3. Other approach

What would you like to do?

Guardrails

• Keep going through tasks until done or blocked
• Always read context files before starting (from the apply instructions output)
• If task is ambiguous, pause and ask before implementing
• If implementation reveals issues, pause and suggest artifact updates
• Keep code changes minimal and scoped to each task
• Update task checkbox immediately after completing each task
• Pause on errors, blockers, or unclear requirements - don't guess
• Use contextFiles from CLI output, don't assume specific file names

Fluid Workflow Integration

This skill supports the "actions on a change" model:

• Can be invoked anytime: Before all artifacts are done (if tasks exist), after partial implementation, interleaved with other actions
• Allows artifact updates: If implementation reveals design issues, suggest updating artifacts - not phase-locked, work fluidly

Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

   Show only active changes (not already archived). Include the schema used for each change if available.

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check artifact completion status

   Run openspec status --change "<name>" --json to check artifact completion.

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used
   • artifacts: List of artifacts with their status (done or other)

   If any artifacts are not done:

   • Display warning listing incomplete artifacts
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

3. Check task completion status

   Read the tasks file (typically tasks.md) to check for incomplete tasks.

   Count tasks marked with - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete).

   If incomplete tasks found:

   • Display warning showing count of incomplete tasks
   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm user wants to proceed
   • Proceed if user confirms

   If no tasks file exists: Proceed without task-related warning.

4. Assess delta spec sync state

   Check for delta specs at openspec/changes/<name>/specs/. If none exist, proceed without sync prompt.

   If delta specs exist:

   • Compare each delta spec with its corresponding main spec at openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md
   • Determine what changes would be applied (adds, modifications, removals, renames)
   • Show a combined summary before prompting

   Prompt options:

   • If changes needed: "Sync now (recommended)", "Archive without syncing"
   • If already synced: "Archive now", "Sync anyway", "Cancel"

   If user chooses sync, use Task tool (subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "Use Skill tool to invoke openspec-sync-specs for change ''. Delta spec analysis: "). Proceed to archive regardless of choice.

5. Perform the archive

   Create the archive directory if it doesn't exist:

   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
   

   Generate target name using current date: YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>

   Check if target already exists:

   • If yes: Fail with error, suggest renaming existing archive or using different date
   • If no: Move the change directory to archive

   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
   

6. Display summary

   Show archive completion summary including:

   • Change name
   • Schema that was used
   • Archive location
   • Whether specs were synced (if applicable)
   • Note about any warnings (incomplete artifacts/tasks)

Output On Success

## Archive Complete

**Change:** <change-name>
**Schema:** <schema-name>
**Archived to:** openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/
**Specs:** ✓ Synced to main specs (or "No delta specs" or "Sync skipped")

All artifacts complete. All tasks complete.

Guardrails

• Always prompt for change selection if not provided
• Use artifact graph (openspec status --json) for completion checking
• Don't block archive on warnings - just inform and confirm
• Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive (it moves with the directory)
• Show clear summary of what happened
• If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven)
• If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment and show the combined summary before prompting

Archive multiple completed changes in a single operation.

This skill allows you to batch-archive changes, handling spec conflicts intelligently by checking the codebase to determine what's actually implemented.

Input: None required (prompts for selection)

Steps

1. Get active changes

   Run openspec list --json to get all active changes.

   If no active changes exist, inform user and stop.

2. Prompt for change selection

   Use AskUserQuestion tool with multi-select to let user choose changes:

   • Show each change with its schema
   • Include an option for "All changes"
   • Allow any number of selections (1+ works, 2+ is the typical use case)

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT auto-select. Always let the user choose.

3. Batch validation - gather status for all selected changes

   For each selected change, collect:

   a. Artifact status - Run openspec status --change "<name>" --json

   • Parse schemaName and artifacts list
   • Note which artifacts are done vs other states

   b. Task completion - Read openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md

   • Count - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete)
   • If no tasks file exists, note as "No tasks"

   c. Delta specs - Check openspec/changes/<name>/specs/ directory

   • List which capability specs exist
   • For each, extract requirement names (lines matching ### Requirement: <name>)

4. Detect spec conflicts

   Build a map of capability -> [changes that touch it]:

   auth -> [change-a, change-b]  <- CONFLICT (2+ changes)
   api  -> [change-c]            <- OK (only 1 change)
   

   A conflict exists when 2+ selected changes have delta specs for the same capability.

5. Resolve conflicts agentically

   For each conflict, investigate the codebase:

   a. Read the delta specs from each conflicting change to understand what each claims to add/modify

   b. Search the codebase for implementation evidence:

   • Look for code implementing requirements from each delta spec
   • Check for related files, functions, or tests

   c. Determine resolution:

   • If only one change is actually implemented -> sync that one's specs
   • If both implemented -> apply in chronological order (older first, newer overwrites)
   • If neither implemented -> skip spec sync, warn user

   d. Record resolution for each conflict:

   • Which change's specs to apply
   • In what order (if both)
   • Rationale (what was found in codebase)

6. Show consolidated status table

   Display a table summarizing all changes:

   | Change               | Artifacts | Tasks | Specs   | Conflicts | Status |
   |---------------------|-----------|-------|---------|-----------|--------|
   | schema-management   | Done      | 5/5   | 2 delta | None      | Ready  |
   | project-config      | Done      | 3/3   | 1 delta | None      | Ready  |
   | add-oauth           | Done      | 4/4   | 1 delta | auth (!)  | Ready* |
   | add-verify-skill    | 1 left    | 2/5   | None    | None      | Warn   |
   

   For conflicts, show the resolution:

   * Conflict resolution:
     - auth spec: Will apply add-oauth then add-jwt (both implemented, chronological order)
   

   For incomplete changes, show warnings:

   Warnings:
   - add-verify-skill: 1 incomplete artifact, 3 incomplete tasks
   

7. Confirm batch operation

   Use AskUserQuestion tool with a single confirmation:

   • "Archive N changes?" with options based on status
   • Options might include:
     • "Archive all N changes"
     • "Archive only N ready changes (skip incomplete)"
     • "Cancel"

   If there are incomplete changes, make clear they'll be archived with warnings.

8. Execute archive for each confirmed change

   Process changes in the determined order (respecting conflict resolution):

   a. Sync specs if delta specs exist:

   • Use the openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven intelligent merge)
   • For conflicts, apply in resolved order
   • Track if sync was done

   b. Perform the archive:

   mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive
   mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>
   

   c. Track outcome for each change:

   • Success: archived successfully
   • Failed: error during archive (record error)
   • Skipped: user chose not to archive (if applicable)

9. Display summary

   Show final results:

   ## Bulk Archive Complete
   
   Archived 3 changes:
   - schema-management-cli -> archive/2026-01-19-schema-management-cli/
   - project-config -> archive/2026-01-19-project-config/
   - add-oauth -> archive/2026-01-19-add-oauth/
   
   Skipped 1 change:
   - add-verify-skill (user chose not to archive incomplete)
   
   Spec sync summary:
   - 4 delta specs synced to main specs
   - 1 conflict resolved (auth: applied both in chronological order)
   

   If any failures:

   Failed 1 change:
   - some-change: Archive directory already exists
   

Conflict Resolution Examples

Example 1: Only one implemented

Conflict: specs/auth/spec.md touched by [add-oauth, add-jwt]

Checking add-oauth:
- Delta adds "OAuth Provider Integration" requirement
- Searching codebase... found src/auth/oauth.ts implementing OAuth flow

Checking add-jwt:
- Delta adds "JWT Token Handling" requirement
- Searching codebase... no JWT implementation found

Resolution: Only add-oauth is implemented. Will sync add-oauth specs only.

Example 2: Both implemented

Conflict: specs/api/spec.md touched by [add-rest-api, add-graphql]

Checking add-rest-api (created 2026-01-10):
- Delta adds "REST Endpoints" requirement
- Searching codebase... found src/api/rest.ts

Checking add-graphql (created 2026-01-15):
- Delta adds "GraphQL Schema" requirement
- Searching codebase... found src/api/graphql.ts

Resolution: Both implemented. Will apply add-rest-api specs first,
then add-graphql specs (chronological order, newer takes precedence).

Output On Success

## Bulk Archive Complete

Archived N changes:
- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/
- <change-2> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-2>/

Spec sync summary:
- N delta specs synced to main specs
- No conflicts (or: M conflicts resolved)

Output On Partial Success

## Bulk Archive Complete (partial)

Archived N changes:
- <change-1> -> archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<change-1>/

Skipped M changes:
- <change-2> (user chose not to archive incomplete)

Failed K changes:
- <change-3>: Archive directory already exists

Output When No Changes

## No Changes to Archive

No active changes found. Create a new change to get started.

Guardrails

• Allow any number of changes (1+ is fine, 2+ is the typical use case)
• Always prompt for selection, never auto-select
• Detect spec conflicts early and resolve by checking codebase
• When both changes are implemented, apply specs in chronological order
• Skip spec sync only when implementation is missing (warn user)
• Show clear per-change status before confirming
• Use single confirmation for entire batch
• Track and report all outcomes (success/skip/fail)
• Preserve .openspec.yaml when moving to archive
• Archive directory target uses current date: YYYY-MM-DD-
• If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others

Continue working on a change by creating the next artifact.

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes sorted by most recently modified. Then use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select which change to work on.

   Present the top 3-4 most recently modified changes as options, showing:

   • Change name
   • Schema (from schema field if present, otherwise "spec-driven")
   • Status (e.g., "0/5 tasks", "complete", "no tasks")
   • How recently it was modified (from lastModified field)

   Mark the most recently modified change as "(Recommended)" since it's likely what the user wants to continue.

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check current status

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand current state. The response includes:

   • schemaName: The workflow schema being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • artifacts: Array of artifacts with their status ("done", "ready", "blocked")
   • isComplete: Boolean indicating if all artifacts are complete

3. Act based on status:

   ---

   If all artifacts are complete (isComplete: true):

   • Congratulate the user
   • Show final status including the schema used
   • Suggest: "All artifacts created! You can now implement this change or archive it."
   • STOP

   ---

   If artifacts are ready to create (status shows artifacts with status: "ready"):

   • Pick the FIRST artifact with status: "ready" from the status output
   • Get its instructions:

     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
     

   • Parse the JSON. The key fields are:
     • context: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • rules: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • template: The structure to use for your output file
     • instruction: Schema-specific guidance
     • outputPath: Where to write the artifact
     • dependencies: Completed artifacts to read for context
   • Create the artifact file:
     • Read any completed dependency files for context
     • Use template as the structure - fill in its sections
     • Apply context and rules as constraints when writing - but do NOT copy them into the file
     • Write to the output path specified in instructions
   • Show what was created and what's now unlocked
   • STOP after creating ONE artifact

   ---

   If no artifacts are ready (all blocked):

   • This shouldn't happen with a valid schema
   • Show status and suggest checking for issues

4. After creating an artifact, show progress

   openspec status --change "<name>"
   

Output

After each invocation, show:

• Which artifact was created
• Schema workflow being used
• Current progress (N/M complete)
• What artifacts are now unlocked
• Prompt: "Want to continue? Just ask me to continue or tell me what to do next."

Artifact Creation Guidelines

The artifact types and their purpose depend on the schema. Use the instruction field from the instructions output to understand what to create.

Common artifact patterns:

spec-driven schema (proposal → specs → design → tasks):

• proposal.md: Ask user about the change if not clear. Fill in Why, What Changes, Capabilities, Impact.
  • The Capabilities section is critical - each capability listed will need a spec file.
• specs//spec.md: Create one spec per capability listed in the proposal's Capabilities section (use the capability name, not the change name).
• design.md: Document technical decisions, architecture, and implementation approach.
• tasks.md: Break down implementation into checkboxed tasks.

For other schemas, follow the instruction field from the CLI output.

Guardrails

• Create ONE artifact per invocation
• Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
• Never skip artifacts or create out of order
• If context is unclear, ask the user before creating
• Verify the artifact file exists after writing before marking progress
• Use the schema's artifact sequence, don't assume specific artifact names
• IMPORTANT: context and rules are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
  • Do NOT copy <context>, <rules>, <project_context> blocks into the artifact
  • These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

Enter explore mode. Think deeply. Visualize freely. Follow the conversation wherever it goes.

IMPORTANT: Explore mode is for thinking, not implementing. You may read files, search code, and investigate the codebase, but you must NEVER write code or implement features. If the user asks you to implement something, remind them to exit explore mode first and create a change proposal. You MAY create OpenSpec artifacts (proposals, designs, specs) if the user asks—that's capturing thinking, not implementing.

This is a stance, not a workflow. There are no fixed steps, no required sequence, no mandatory outputs. You're a thinking partner helping the user explore.

The Stance

• Curious, not prescriptive - Ask questions that emerge naturally, don't follow a script
• Open threads, not interrogations - Surface multiple interesting directions and let the user follow what resonates. Don't funnel them through a single path of questions.
• Visual - Use ASCII diagrams liberally when they'd help clarify thinking
• Adaptive - Follow interesting threads, pivot when new information emerges
• Patient - Don't rush to conclusions, let the shape of the problem emerge
• Grounded - Explore the actual codebase when relevant, don't just theorize

What You Might Do

Depending on what the user brings, you might:

Explore the problem space

• Ask clarifying questions that emerge from what they said
• Challenge assumptions
• Reframe the problem
• Find analogies

Investigate the codebase

• Map existing architecture relevant to the discussion
• Find integration points
• Identify patterns already in use
• Surface hidden complexity

Compare options

• Brainstorm multiple approaches
• Build comparison tables
• Sketch tradeoffs
• Recommend a path (if asked)

Visualize

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│     Use ASCII diagrams liberally        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                         │
│   ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        │
│   │ State  │────────▶│ State  │        │
│   │   A    │         │   B    │        │
│   └────────┘         └────────┘        │
│                                         │
│   System diagrams, state machines,      │
│   data flows, architecture sketches,    │
│   dependency graphs, comparison tables  │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Surface risks and unknowns

• Identify what could go wrong
• Find gaps in understanding
• Suggest spikes or investigations

OpenSpec Awareness

You have full context of the OpenSpec system. Use it naturally, don't force it.

Check for context

At the start, quickly check what exists:

openspec list --json

This tells you:

• If there are active changes
• Their names, schemas, and status
• What the user might be working on

When no change exists

Think freely. When insights crystallize, you might offer:

• "This feels solid enough to start a change. Want me to create a proposal?"
• Or keep exploring - no pressure to formalize

When a change exists

If the user mentions a change or you detect one is relevant:

1. Read existing artifacts for context

   • openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/design.md
   • openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md
   • etc.

2. Reference them naturally in conversation

   • "Your design mentions using Redis, but we just realized SQLite fits better..."
   • "The proposal scopes this to premium users, but we're now thinking everyone..."

3. Offer to capture when decisions are made

   Insight Type	Where to Capture
   New requirement discovered	specs/<capability>/spec.md
   Requirement changed	specs/<capability>/spec.md
   Design decision made	design.md
   Scope changed	proposal.md
   New work identified	tasks.md
   Assumption invalidated	Relevant artifact

   Example offers:

   • "That's a design decision. Capture it in design.md?"
   • "This is a new requirement. Add it to specs?"
   • "This changes scope. Update the proposal?"

4. The user decides - Offer and move on. Don't pressure. Don't auto-capture.

What You Don't Have To Do

• Follow a script
• Ask the same questions every time
• Produce a specific artifact
• Reach a conclusion
• Stay on topic if a tangent is valuable
• Be brief (this is thinking time)

Handling Different Entry Points

User brings a vague idea:

User: I'm thinking about adding real-time collaboration

You: Real-time collab is a big space. Let me think about this...

      COLLABORATION SPECTRUM
      ════════════════════════════════════════════

      Awareness          Coordination         Sync
          │                   │                 │
          ▼                   ▼                 ▼
      ┌────────┐         ┌────────┐        ┌────────┐
      │Presence│         │Cursors │        │  CRDT  │
      │  "3    │         │ Multi  │        │Conflict│
      │online" │         │ select │        │  free  │
      └────────┘         └────────┘        └────────┘
          │                   │                 │
       trivial            moderate           complex

      Where's your head at?

User brings a specific problem:

User: The auth system is a mess

You: [reads codebase]

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │              CURRENT AUTH FLOW              │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                        │
          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
          ▼             ▼             ▼
     ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐  ┌─────────┐
     │ Google  │  │  GitHub │  │  Email  │
     │  OAuth  │  │  OAuth  │  │  Magic  │
     └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘  └────┬────┘
          │             │             │
          └─────────────┼─────────────┘
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │  Session  │
                  └─────┬─────┘
                        │
                        ▼
                  ┌───────────┐
                  │   Perms   │
                  └───────────┘

     I see three tangles. Which one's burning?

User is stuck mid-implementation:

User: /opsx:explore add-auth-system
      The OAuth integration is more complex than expected

You: [reads change artifacts]

     You're on task 4: "Implement OAuth flow"

     Let me trace what's involved...

     [draws diagram, explores options, suggests paths]

     Want to update the design to reflect this?
     Or add a spike task to investigate?

User wants to compare options:

User: Should we use Postgres or SQLite?

You: Generic answer is boring. What's the context?

User: A CLI tool that tracks local dev environments

You: That changes everything.

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │         CLI TOOL DATA STORAGE                  │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

     Key constraints:
     • No daemon running
     • Must work offline
     • Single user

                  SQLite          Postgres
     Deployment   embedded ✓      needs server ✗
     Offline      yes ✓           no ✗
     Single file  yes ✓           no ✗

     SQLite. Not even close.

     Unless... is there a sync component?

Ending Discovery

There's no required ending. Discovery might:

• Flow into a proposal: "Ready to start? I can create a change proposal."
• Result in artifact updates: "Updated design.md with these decisions"
• Just provide clarity: User has what they need, moves on
• Continue later: "We can pick this up anytime"

When it feels like things are crystallizing, you might summarize:

## What We Figured Out

**The problem**: [crystallized understanding]

**The approach**: [if one emerged]

**Open questions**: [if any remain]

**Next steps** (if ready):
- Create a change proposal
- Keep exploring: just keep talking

But this summary is optional. Sometimes the thinking IS the value.

Guardrails

• Don't implement - Never write code or implement features. Creating OpenSpec artifacts is fine, writing application code is not.
• Don't fake understanding - If something is unclear, dig deeper
• Don't rush - Discovery is thinking time, not task time
• Don't force structure - Let patterns emerge naturally
• Don't auto-capture - Offer to save insights, don't just do it
• Do visualize - A good diagram is worth many paragraphs
• Do explore the codebase - Ground discussions in reality
• Do question assumptions - Including the user's and your own

Fast-forward through artifact creation - generate everything needed to start implementation in one go.

Input: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.

Steps

1. If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build

   Use the AskUserQuestion tool (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:

   "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → add-user-auth).

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

2. Create the change directory

   openspec new change "<name>"
   

   This creates a scaffolded change at openspec/changes/<name>/.

3. Get the artifact build order

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to get:

   • applyRequires: array of artifact IDs needed before implementation (e.g., ["tasks"])
   • artifacts: list of all artifacts with their status and dependencies

4. Create artifacts in sequence until apply-ready

   Use the TodoWrite tool to track progress through the artifacts.

   Loop through artifacts in dependency order (artifacts with no pending dependencies first):

   a. For each artifact that is ready (dependencies satisfied):

   • Get instructions:

     openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change "<name>" --json
     

   • The instructions JSON includes:
     • context: Project background (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • rules: Artifact-specific rules (constraints for you - do NOT include in output)
     • template: The structure to use for your output file
     • instruction: Schema-specific guidance for this artifact type
     • outputPath: Where to write the artifact
     • dependencies: Completed artifacts to read for context
   • Read any completed dependency files for context
   • Create the artifact file using template as the structure
   • Apply context and rules as constraints - but do NOT copy them into the file
   • Show brief progress: "✓ Created "

   b. Continue until all applyRequires artifacts are complete

   • After creating each artifact, re-run openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   • Check if every artifact ID in applyRequires has status: "done" in the artifacts array
   • Stop when all applyRequires artifacts are done

   c. If an artifact requires user input (unclear context):

   • Use AskUserQuestion tool to clarify
   • Then continue with creation

5. Show final status

   openspec status --change "<name>"
   

Output

After completing all artifacts, summarize:

• Change name and location
• List of artifacts created with brief descriptions
• What's ready: "All artifacts created! Ready for implementation."
• Prompt: "Run /opsx:apply or ask me to implement to start working on the tasks."

Artifact Creation Guidelines

• Follow the instruction field from openspec instructions for each artifact type
• The schema defines what each artifact should contain - follow it
• Read dependency artifacts for context before creating new ones
• Use template as the structure for your output file - fill in its sections
• IMPORTANT: context and rules are constraints for YOU, not content for the file
  • Do NOT copy <context>, <rules>, <project_context> blocks into the artifact
  • These guide what you write, but should never appear in the output

Guardrails

• Create ALL artifacts needed for implementation (as defined by schema's apply.requires)
• Always read dependency artifacts before creating a new one
• If context is critically unclear, ask the user - but prefer making reasonable decisions to keep momentum
• If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
• Verify each artifact file exists after writing before proceeding to next

Start a new change using the experimental artifact-driven approach.

Input: The user's request should include a change name (kebab-case) OR a description of what they want to build.

Steps

1. If no clear input provided, ask what they want to build

   Use the AskUserQuestion tool (open-ended, no preset options) to ask:

   "What change do you want to work on? Describe what you want to build or fix."

   From their description, derive a kebab-case name (e.g., "add user authentication" → add-user-auth).

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build.

2. Determine the workflow schema

   Use the default schema (omit --schema) unless the user explicitly requests a different workflow.

   Use a different schema only if the user mentions:

   • A specific schema name → use --schema <name>
   • "show workflows" or "what workflows" → run openspec schemas --json and let them choose

   Otherwise: Omit --schema to use the default.

3. Create the change directory

   openspec new change "<name>"
   

   Add --schema <name> only if the user requested a specific workflow. This creates a scaffolded change at openspec/changes/<name>/ with the selected schema.

4. Show the artifact status

   openspec status --change "<name>"
   

   This shows which artifacts need to be created and which are ready (dependencies satisfied).

5. Get instructions for the first artifact The first artifact depends on the schema (e.g., proposal for spec-driven). Check the status output to find the first artifact with status "ready".

   openspec instructions <first-artifact-id> --change "<name>"
   

   This outputs the template and context for creating the first artifact.

6. STOP and wait for user direction

Output

After completing the steps, summarize:

• Change name and location
• Schema/workflow being used and its artifact sequence
• Current status (0/N artifacts complete)
• The template for the first artifact
• Prompt: "Ready to create the first artifact? Just describe what this change is about and I'll draft it, or ask me to continue."

Guardrails

• Do NOT create any artifacts yet - just show the instructions
• Do NOT advance beyond showing the first artifact template
• If the name is invalid (not kebab-case), ask for a valid name
• If a change with that name already exists, suggest continuing that change instead
• Pass --schema if using a non-default workflow

Guide the user through their first complete OpenSpec workflow cycle. This is a teaching experience—you'll do real work in their codebase while explaining each step.

Preflight

Before starting, check if the OpenSpec CLI is installed:

# Unix/macOS
openspec --version 2>&1 || echo "CLI_NOT_INSTALLED"
# Windows (PowerShell)
# if (Get-Command openspec -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue) { openspec --version } else { echo "CLI_NOT_INSTALLED" }

If CLI not installed:

OpenSpec CLI is not installed. Install it first, then come back to /opsx:onboard.

Stop here if not installed.

Phase 1: Welcome

Display:

## Welcome to OpenSpec!

I'll walk you through a complete change cycle—from idea to implementation—using a real task in your codebase. Along the way, you'll learn the workflow by doing it.

**What we'll do:**
1. Pick a small, real task in your codebase
2. Explore the problem briefly
3. Create a change (the container for our work)
4. Build the artifacts: proposal → specs → design → tasks
5. Implement the tasks
6. Archive the completed change

**Time:** ~15-20 minutes

Let's start by finding something to work on.

Phase 2: Task Selection

Codebase Analysis

Scan the codebase for small improvement opportunities. Look for:

1. TODO/FIXME comments - Search for TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX in code files
2. Missing error handling - catch blocks that swallow errors, risky operations without try-catch
3. Functions without tests - Cross-reference src/ with test directories
4. Type issues - any types in TypeScript files (: any, as any)
5. Debug artifacts - console.log, console.debug, debugger statements in non-debug code
6. Missing validation - User input handlers without validation

Also check recent git activity:

# Unix/macOS
git log --oneline -10 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"
# Windows (PowerShell)
# git log --oneline -10 2>$null; if ($LASTEXITCODE -ne 0) { echo "No git history" }

Present Suggestions

From your analysis, present 3-4 specific suggestions:

## Task Suggestions

Based on scanning your codebase, here are some good starter tasks:

**1. [Most promising task]**
   Location: `src/path/to/file.ts:42`
   Scope: ~1-2 files, ~20-30 lines
   Why it's good: [brief reason]

**2. [Second task]**
   Location: `src/another/file.ts`
   Scope: ~1 file, ~15 lines
   Why it's good: [brief reason]

**3. [Third task]**
   Location: [location]
   Scope: [estimate]
   Why it's good: [brief reason]

**4. Something else?**
   Tell me what you'd like to work on.

Which task interests you? (Pick a number or describe your own)

If nothing found: Fall back to asking what the user wants to build:

I didn't find obvious quick wins in your codebase. What's something small you've been meaning to add or fix?

Scope Guardrail

If the user picks or describes something too large (major feature, multi-day work):

That's a valuable task, but it's probably larger than ideal for your first OpenSpec run-through.

For learning the workflow, smaller is better—it lets you see the full cycle without getting stuck in implementation details.

**Options:**
1. **Slice it smaller** - What's the smallest useful piece of [their task]? Maybe just [specific slice]?
2. **Pick something else** - One of the other suggestions, or a different small task?
3. **Do it anyway** - If you really want to tackle this, we can. Just know it'll take longer.

What would you prefer?

Let the user override if they insist—this is a soft guardrail.

Phase 3: Explore Demo

Once a task is selected, briefly demonstrate explore mode:

Before we create a change, let me quickly show you **explore mode**—it's how you think through problems before committing to a direction.

Spend 1-2 minutes investigating the relevant code:

• Read the file(s) involved
• Draw a quick ASCII diagram if it helps
• Note any considerations

## Quick Exploration

[Your brief analysis—what you found, any considerations]

┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   [Optional: ASCII diagram if helpful]  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Explore mode (`/opsx:explore`) is for this kind of thinking—investigating before implementing. You can use it anytime you need to think through a problem.

Now let's create a change to hold our work.

PAUSE - Wait for user acknowledgment before proceeding.

Phase 4: Create the Change

EXPLAIN:

## Creating a Change

A "change" in OpenSpec is a container for all the thinking and planning around a piece of work. It lives in `openspec/changes/<name>/` and holds your artifacts—proposal, specs, design, tasks.

Let me create one for our task.

DO: Create the change with a derived kebab-case name:

openspec new change "<derived-name>"

SHOW:

Created: `openspec/changes/<name>/`

The folder structure:

openspec/changes// ├── proposal.md ← Why we're doing this (empty, we'll fill it) ├── design.md ← How we'll build it (empty) ├── specs/ ← Detailed requirements (empty) └── tasks.md ← Implementation checklist (empty)

Now let's fill in the first artifact—the proposal.

Phase 5: Proposal

EXPLAIN:

## The Proposal

The proposal captures **why** we're making this change and **what** it involves at a high level. It's the "elevator pitch" for the work.

I'll draft one based on our task.

DO: Draft the proposal content (don't save yet):

Here's a draft proposal:

---

## Why

[1-2 sentences explaining the problem/opportunity]

## What Changes

[Bullet points of what will be different]

## Capabilities

### New Capabilities
- `<capability-name>`: [brief description]

### Modified Capabilities
<!-- If modifying existing behavior -->

## Impact

- `src/path/to/file.ts`: [what changes]
- [other files if applicable]

---

Does this capture the intent? I can adjust before we save it.

PAUSE - Wait for user approval/feedback.

After approval, save the proposal:

openspec instructions proposal --change "<name>" --json

Then write the content to openspec/changes/<name>/proposal.md.

Proposal saved. This is your "why" document—you can always come back and refine it as understanding evolves.

Next up: specs.

Phase 6: Specs

EXPLAIN:

## Specs

Specs define **what** we're building in precise, testable terms. They use a requirement/scenario format that makes expected behavior crystal clear.

For a small task like this, we might only need one spec file.

DO: Create the spec file:

# Unix/macOS
mkdir -p openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability-name>
# Windows (PowerShell)
# New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force -Path "openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability-name>"

Draft the spec content:

Here's the spec:

---

## ADDED Requirements

### Requirement: <Name>

<Description of what the system should do>

#### Scenario: <Scenario name>

- **WHEN** <trigger condition>
- **THEN** <expected outcome>
- **AND** <additional outcome if needed>

---

This format—WHEN/THEN/AND—makes requirements testable. You can literally read them as test cases.

Save to openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md.

Phase 7: Design

EXPLAIN:

## Design

The design captures **how** we'll build it—technical decisions, tradeoffs, approach.

For small changes, this might be brief. That's fine—not every change needs deep design discussion.

DO: Draft design.md:

Here's the design:

---

## Context

[Brief context about the current state]

## Goals / Non-Goals

**Goals:**
- [What we're trying to achieve]

**Non-Goals:**
- [What's explicitly out of scope]

## Decisions

### Decision 1: [Key decision]

[Explanation of approach and rationale]

---

For a small task, this captures the key decisions without over-engineering.

Save to openspec/changes/<name>/design.md.

Phase 8: Tasks

EXPLAIN:

## Tasks

Finally, we break the work into implementation tasks—checkboxes that drive the apply phase.

These should be small, clear, and in logical order.

DO: Generate tasks based on specs and design:

Here are the implementation tasks:

---

## 1. [Category or file]

- [ ] 1.1 [Specific task]
- [ ] 1.2 [Specific task]

## 2. Verify

- [ ] 2.1 [Verification step]

---

Each checkbox becomes a unit of work in the apply phase. Ready to implement?

PAUSE - Wait for user to confirm they're ready to implement.

Save to openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md.

Phase 9: Apply (Implementation)

EXPLAIN:

## Implementation

Now we implement each task, checking them off as we go. I'll announce each one and occasionally note how the specs/design informed the approach.

DO: For each task:

1. Announce: "Working on task N: [description]"
2. Implement the change in the codebase
3. Reference specs/design naturally: "The spec says X, so I'm doing Y"
4. Mark complete in tasks.md: - [ ] → - [x]
5. Brief status: "✓ Task N complete"

Keep narration light—don't over-explain every line of code.

After all tasks:

## Implementation Complete

All tasks done:
- [x] Task 1
- [x] Task 2
- [x] ...

The change is implemented! One more step—let's archive it.

Phase 10: Archive

EXPLAIN:

## Archiving

When a change is complete, we archive it. This moves it from `openspec/changes/` to `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`.

Archived changes become your project's decision history—you can always find them later to understand why something was built a certain way.

DO:

openspec archive "<name>"

SHOW:

Archived to: `openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>/`

The change is now part of your project's history. The code is in your codebase, the decision record is preserved.

Phase 11: Recap & Next Steps

## Congratulations!

You just completed a full OpenSpec cycle:

1. **Explore** - Thought through the problem
2. **New** - Created a change container
3. **Proposal** - Captured WHY
4. **Specs** - Defined WHAT in detail
5. **Design** - Decided HOW
6. **Tasks** - Broke it into steps
7. **Apply** - Implemented the work
8. **Archive** - Preserved the record

This same rhythm works for any size change—a small fix or a major feature.

---

## Command Reference

**Core workflow:**

| Command | What it does |
|---------|--------------|
| `/opsx:propose` | Create a change and generate all artifacts |
| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems before/during work |
| `/opsx:apply` | Implement tasks from a change |
| `/opsx:archive` | Archive a completed change |

**Additional commands:**

| Command | What it does |
|---------|--------------|
| `/opsx:new` | Start a new change, step through artifacts one at a time |
| `/opsx:continue` | Continue working on an existing change |
| `/opsx:ff` | Fast-forward: create all artifacts at once |
| `/opsx:verify` | Verify implementation matches artifacts |

---

## What's Next?

Try `/opsx:propose` on something you actually want to build. You've got the rhythm now!

Graceful Exit Handling

User wants to stop mid-way

If the user says they need to stop, want to pause, or seem disengaged:

No problem! Your change is saved at `openspec/changes/<name>/`.

To pick up where we left off later:
- `/opsx:continue <name>` - Resume artifact creation
- `/opsx:apply <name>` - Jump to implementation (if tasks exist)

The work won't be lost. Come back whenever you're ready.

Exit gracefully without pressure.

User just wants command reference

If the user says they just want to see the commands or skip the tutorial:

## OpenSpec Quick Reference

**Core workflow:**

| Command | What it does |
|---------|--------------|
| `/opsx:propose <name>` | Create a change and generate all artifacts |
| `/opsx:explore` | Think through problems (no code changes) |
| `/opsx:apply <name>` | Implement tasks |
| `/opsx:archive <name>` | Archive when done |

**Additional commands:**

| Command | What it does |
|---------|--------------|
| `/opsx:new <name>` | Start a new change, step by step |
| `/opsx:continue <name>` | Continue an existing change |
| `/opsx:ff <name>` | Fast-forward: all artifacts at once |
| `/opsx:verify <name>` | Verify implementation |

Try `/opsx:propose` to start your first change.

Exit gracefully.

Guardrails

• Follow the EXPLAIN → DO → SHOW → PAUSE pattern at key transitions (after explore, after proposal draft, after tasks, after archive)
• Keep narration light during implementation—teach without lecturing
• Don't skip phases even if the change is small—the goal is teaching the workflow
• Pause for acknowledgment at marked points, but don't over-pause
• Handle exits gracefully—never pressure the user to continue
• Use real codebase tasks—don't simulate or use fake examples
• Adjust scope gently—guide toward smaller tasks but respect user choice

Sync delta specs from a change to main specs.

This is an agent-driven operation - you will read delta specs and directly edit main specs to apply the changes. This allows intelligent merging (e.g., adding a scenario without copying the entire requirement).

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

   Show changes that have delta specs (under specs/ directory).

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Find delta specs

   Look for delta spec files in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/*/spec.md.

   Each delta spec file contains sections like:

   • ## ADDED Requirements - New requirements to add
   • ## MODIFIED Requirements - Changes to existing requirements
   • ## REMOVED Requirements - Requirements to remove
   • ## RENAMED Requirements - Requirements to rename (FROM:/TO: format)

   If no delta specs found, inform user and stop.

3. For each delta spec, apply changes to main specs

   For each capability with a delta spec at openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md:

   a. Read the delta spec to understand the intended changes

   b. Read the main spec at openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md (may not exist yet)

   c. Apply changes intelligently:

   ADDED Requirements:

   • If requirement doesn't exist in main spec → add it
   • If requirement already exists → update it to match (treat as implicit MODIFIED)

   MODIFIED Requirements:

   • Find the requirement in main spec
   • Apply the changes - this can be:
     • Adding new scenarios (don't need to copy existing ones)
     • Modifying existing scenarios
     • Changing the requirement description
   • Preserve scenarios/content not mentioned in the delta

   REMOVED Requirements:

   • Remove the entire requirement block from main spec

   RENAMED Requirements:

   • Find the FROM requirement, rename to TO

   d. Create new main spec if capability doesn't exist yet:

   • Create openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md
   • Add Purpose section (can be brief, mark as TBD)
   • Add Requirements section with the ADDED requirements

4. Show summary

   After applying all changes, summarize:

   • Which capabilities were updated
   • What changes were made (requirements added/modified/removed/renamed)

Delta Spec Format Reference

## ADDED Requirements

### Requirement: New Feature
The system SHALL do something new.

#### Scenario: Basic case
- **WHEN** user does X
- **THEN** system does Y

## MODIFIED Requirements

### Requirement: Existing Feature
#### Scenario: New scenario to add
- **WHEN** user does A
- **THEN** system does B

## REMOVED Requirements

### Requirement: Deprecated Feature

## RENAMED Requirements

- FROM: `### Requirement: Old Name`
- TO: `### Requirement: New Name`

Key Principle: Intelligent Merging

Unlike programmatic merging, you can apply partial updates:

• To add a scenario, just include that scenario under MODIFIED - don't copy existing scenarios
• The delta represents intent, not a wholesale replacement
• Use your judgment to merge changes sensibly

Output On Success

## Specs Synced: <change-name>

Updated main specs:

**<capability-1>**:
- Added requirement: "New Feature"
- Modified requirement: "Existing Feature" (added 1 scenario)

**<capability-2>**:
- Created new spec file
- Added requirement: "Another Feature"

Main specs are now updated. The change remains active - archive when implementation is complete.

Guardrails

• Read both delta and main specs before making changes
• Preserve existing content not mentioned in delta
• If something is unclear, ask for clarification
• Show what you're changing as you go
• The operation should be idempotent - running twice should give same result

Verify that an implementation matches the change artifacts (specs, tasks, design).

Input: Optionally specify a change name. If omitted, check if it can be inferred from conversation context. If vague or ambiguous you MUST prompt for available changes.

Steps

1. If no change name provided, prompt for selection

   Run openspec list --json to get available changes. Use the AskUserQuestion tool to let the user select.

   Show changes that have implementation tasks (tasks artifact exists). Include the schema used for each change if available. Mark changes with incomplete tasks as "(In Progress)".

   IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess or auto-select a change. Always let the user choose.

2. Check status to understand the schema

   openspec status --change "<name>" --json
   

   Parse the JSON to understand:

   • schemaName: The workflow being used (e.g., "spec-driven")
   • Which artifacts exist for this change

3. Get the change directory and load artifacts

   openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json
   

   This returns the change directory and context files. Read all available artifacts from contextFiles.

4. Initialize verification report structure

   Create a report structure with three dimensions:

   • Completeness: Track tasks and spec coverage
   • Correctness: Track requirement implementation and scenario coverage
   • Coherence: Track design adherence and pattern consistency

   Each dimension can have CRITICAL, WARNING, or SUGGESTION issues.

5. Verify Completeness

   Task Completion:

   • If tasks.md exists in contextFiles, read it
   • Parse checkboxes: - [ ] (incomplete) vs - [x] (complete)
   • Count complete vs total tasks
   • If incomplete tasks exist:
     • Add CRITICAL issue for each incomplete task
     • Recommendation: "Complete task: " or "Mark as done if already implemented"

   Spec Coverage:

   • If delta specs exist in openspec/changes/<name>/specs/:
     • Extract all requirements (marked with "### Requirement:")
     • For each requirement:
       • Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement
       • Assess if implementation likely exists
     • If requirements appear unimplemented:
       • Add CRITICAL issue: "Requirement not found: "
       • Recommendation: "Implement requirement X: "

6. Verify Correctness

   Requirement Implementation Mapping:

   • For each requirement from delta specs:
     • Search codebase for implementation evidence
     • If found, note file paths and line ranges
     • Assess if implementation matches requirement intent
     • If divergence detected:
       • Add WARNING: "Implementation may diverge from spec:
         "
       • Recommendation: "Review : against requirement X"

   Scenario Coverage:

   • For each scenario in delta specs (marked with "#### Scenario:"):
     • Check if conditions are handled in code
     • Check if tests exist covering the scenario
     • If scenario appears uncovered:
       • Add WARNING: "Scenario not covered: "
       • Recommendation: "Add test or implementation for scenario: "

7. Verify Coherence

   Design Adherence:

   • If design.md exists in contextFiles:
     • Extract key decisions (look for sections like "Decision:", "Approach:", "Architecture:")
     • Verify implementation follows those decisions
     • If contradiction detected:
       • Add WARNING: "Design decision not followed: "
       • Recommendation: "Update implementation or revise design.md to match reality"
   • If no design.md: Skip design adherence check, note "No design.md to verify against"

   Code Pattern Consistency:

   • Review new code for consistency with project patterns
   • Check file naming, directory structure, coding style
   • If significant deviations found:
     • Add SUGGESTION: "Code pattern deviation:
       "
     • Recommendation: "Consider following project pattern: "

8. Generate Verification Report

   Summary Scorecard:

   ## Verification Report: <change-name>
   
   ### Summary
   | Dimension    | Status           |
   |--------------|------------------|
   | Completeness | X/Y tasks, N reqs|
   | Correctness  | M/N reqs covered |
   | Coherence    | Followed/Issues  |
   

   Issues by Priority:

   1. CRITICAL (Must fix before archive):

      • Incomplete tasks
      • Missing requirement implementations
      • Each with specific, actionable recommendation

   2. WARNING (Should fix):

      • Spec/design divergences
      • Missing scenario coverage
      • Each with specific recommendation

   3. SUGGESTION (Nice to fix):

      • Pattern inconsistencies
      • Minor improvements
      • Each with specific recommendation

   Final Assessment:

   • If CRITICAL issues: "X critical issue(s) found. Fix before archiving."
   • If only warnings: "No critical issues. Y warning(s) to consider. Ready for archive (with noted improvements)."
   • If all clear: "All checks passed. Ready for archive."

Verification Heuristics

• Completeness: Focus on objective checklist items (checkboxes, requirements list)
• Correctness: Use keyword search, file path analysis, reasonable inference - don't require perfect certainty
• Coherence: Look for glaring inconsistencies, don't nitpick style
• False Positives: When uncertain, prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING, WARNING over CRITICAL
• Actionability: Every issue must have a specific recommendation with file/line references where applicable

Graceful Degradation

• If only tasks.md exists: verify task completion only, skip spec/design checks
• If tasks + specs exist: verify completeness and correctness, skip design
• If full artifacts: verify all three dimensions
• Always note which checks were skipped and why

Output Format

Use clear markdown with:

• Table for summary scorecard
• Grouped lists for issues (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION)
• Code references in format: file.ts:123
• Specific, actionable recommendations
• No vague suggestions like "consider reviewing"