tlc-spec-driven
The tlc-spec-driven skill structures project and feature planning through four adaptive phases (Specify, Design, Tasks, Execute) that automatically scale in depth based on complexity rather than applying fixed ceremony. Use it when initializing new projects, mapping existing codebases, planning features, implementing with verification, handling quick ad-hoc tasks, tracking decisions across sessions, or pausing and resuming work, as it creates atomic tasks with verification criteria, atomic git commits, requirement traceability, and persistent session memory in a stack-agnostic way.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills /tmp/tlc-spec-driven && cp -r /tmp/tlc-spec-driven/packages/skills-catalog/skills/(development)/tlc-spec-driven ~/.claude/skills/tlc-spec-drivenSKILL.md
# Tech Lead's Club - Spec-Driven Development
Plan and implement projects with precision. Granular tasks. Clear dependencies. Right tools. Zero ceremony.
```
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ SPECIFY │ → │ DESIGN │ → │ TASKS │ → │ EXECUTE │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘
required optional* optional* required
* Agent auto-skips when scope doesn't need it
```
## Auto-Sizing: The Core Principle
**The complexity determines the depth, not a fixed pipeline.** Before starting any feature, assess its scope and apply only what's needed:
| Scope | What | Specify | Design | Tasks | Execute |
| ----------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- |
| **Small** | ≤3 files, one sentence | **Quick mode** — skip pipeline entirely | - | - | - |
| **Medium** | Clear feature, <10 tasks | Spec (brief) | Skip — design inline | Skip — tasks implicit | Implement + verify |
| **Large** | Multi-component feature | Full spec + requirement IDs | Architecture + components | Full breakdown + dependencies | Implement + verify per task |
| **Complex** | Ambiguity, new domain | Full spec + [discuss gray areas](references/discuss.md) | [Research](references/design.md) + architecture | Breakdown + parallel plan | Implement + [interactive UAT](references/validate.md) |
**Rules:**
- **Specify and Execute are always required** — you always need to know WHAT and DO it
- **Design is skipped** when the change is straightforward (no architectural decisions, no new patterns)
- **Tasks is skipped** when there are ≤3 obvious steps (they become implicit in Execute)
- **Discuss is triggered within Specify** only when the agent detects ambiguous gray areas that need user input
- **Interactive UAT is triggered within Execute** only for user-facing features with complex behavior
- **Quick mode** is the express lane — for bug fixes, config changes, and small tweaks
**Safety valve:** Even when Tasks is skipped, Execute ALWAYS starts by listing atomic steps inline (see [implement.md](references/implement.md)). If that listing reveals >5 steps or complex dependencies, STOP and create a formal `tasks.md` — the Tasks phase was wrongly skipped.
## Project Structure
```
.specs/
├── project/
│ ├── PROJECT.md # Vision & goals
│ ├── ROADMAP.md # Features & milestones
│ └── STATE.md # Memory: decisions, blockers, lessons, todos, deferred ideas
├── codebase/ # Brownfield analysis (existing projects)
│ ├── STACK.md
│ ├── ARCHITECTURE.md
│ ├── CONVENTIONS.md
│ ├── STRUCTURE.md
│ ├── TESTING.md
│ ├── INTEGRATIONS.md
│ └── CONCERNS.md
├── features/ # Feature specifications
│ └── [feature]/
│ ├── spec.md # Requirements with traceable IDs
│ ├── context.md # User decisions for gray areas (only when discuss is triggered)
│ ├── design.md # Architecture & components (only for Large/Complex)
│ └── tasks.md # Atomic tasks with verification (only for Large/Complex)
└── quick/ # Ad-hoc tasks (quick mode)
└── NNN-slug/
├── TASK.md
└── SUMMARY.md
```
## Workflow
**New project:**
1. Initialize project → PROJECT.md + ROADMAP.md
2. For each feature → Specify → (Design) → (Tasks) → Execute (depth auto-sized)
**Existing codebase:**
1. Map codebase → 7 brownfield docs
2. Initialize project → PROJECT.md + ROADMAP.md
3. For each feature → same adaptive workflow
**Quick mode:** Describe → Implement → Verify → Commit (for ≤3 files, one-sentence scope)
## Context Loading Strategy
**Base load (~15k tokens):**
- PROJECT.md (if exists)
- ROADMAP.md (when planning/working on features)
- STATE.md (persistent memory)
**On-demand load:**
- Codebase docs (when working in existing project)
- CONCERNS.md (when planning features that touch flagged areas, estimating risk, or modifying fragile components)
- TESTING.md (when creating tasks or executing — drives test type assignment and gate checks)
- spec.md (when working on specific feature)
- context.md (when designing or implementing from user decisions)
- design.md (when implementing from design)
- tasks.md (when executing tasks)
**Never load simultaneously:**
- Multiple feature specs
- Multiple architecture docs
- Archived documents
**Target:** <40k tokens total context
**Reserve:** 160k+ tokens for work, reasoning, outputs
**Monitoring:** Display status when >40k (see [context-limits.md](references/context-limits.md))
## Sub-Agent Delegation
Use sub-agents (the Task tool or equivalent) to keep the main context window lean and enable
parallel execution. The orchestrating agent plans and coordinates; sub-agents do the heavy lifting.
**When to delegate to a sub-agent:**
| Activity | Delegate? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Research (design phase, brownfield mapping) | Yes | Research output is large; only the summary matters to the main context |
| Implementing a task | Yes | File reads, edits, test output consume context; only the result matters |
| Parallel `[P]` tasks | Yes (one per task) | The only way to actually run tasks in parallel |
| Sequential tasks with no `[P]` | Yes | Keeps implementation artifacts out of the main context |
| Planning, task creation, validation reports | No | These require the full accumulateFinds duplicate business logic spread across multiple components and suggests consolidation. Use when asking "where is this logic duplicated?", "find common code between services", "what can be consolidated?", "detect shared domain logic", or analyzing component overlap before refactoring. Do NOT use for code-level duplication detection (use linters) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis).
Detects misplaced classes and fixes component hierarchy problems — finds code that should belong inside a component but sits at the root level. Use when asking "clean up component structure", "find orphaned classes", "fix module hierarchy", "flatten nested components", or analyzing why namespaces have misplaced code. Do NOT use for dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis) or domain grouping (use domain-identification-grouping).
Maps architectural components in a codebase and measures their size to identify what should be extracted first. Use when asking "how big is each module?", "what components do I have?", "which service is too large?", "analyze codebase structure", "size my monolith", or planning where to start decomposing. Do NOT use for runtime performance sizing or infrastructure capacity planning.
Analyzes coupling between modules using the three-dimensional model (strength, distance, volatility) from "Balancing Coupling in Software Design". Use when asking "are these modules too coupled?", "show me dependencies", "analyze integration quality", "which modules should I decouple?", "coupling report", or evaluating architectural health. Do NOT use for domain boundary analysis (use domain-analysis) or component sizing (use component-identification-sizing).
Creates step-by-step decomposition plans and migration roadmaps for breaking apart monolithic applications. Use when asking "what order should I extract services?", "plan my migration", "create a decomposition roadmap", "prioritize what to split", "monolith to microservices strategy", or tracking decomposition progress. Do NOT use for domain analysis (use domain-analysis) or component sizing (use component-identification-sizing).
Maps business domains and suggests service boundaries in any codebase using DDD Strategic Design. Use when asking "what are the domains in this codebase?", "where should I draw service boundaries?", "identify bounded contexts", "classify subdomains", "DDD analysis", or analyzing domain cohesion. Do NOT use for grouping existing components into domains (use domain-identification-grouping) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis).
Groups existing components into logical business domains to plan service-based architecture. Use when asking "which components belong together?", "group these into services", "organize by domain", "component-to-domain mapping", or planning service extraction from an existing codebase. Do NOT use for identifying new domains from scratch (use domain-analysis) or analyzing coupling (use coupling-analysis).
AI frontend specialist and design consultant that guides users through a structured discovery process before generating any code. Collects visual references, design tokens, typography, icons, layout preferences, and brand guidelines to ensure the final output matches the user's vision with high fidelity. Use when the user asks to build, design, create, or improve any frontend interface — websites, landing pages, dashboards, components, apps, emails, forms, modals, or any UI element. Also triggers on "build me a UI", "design a page", "create a component", "improve this layout", "make this look better", "frontend", "interface", "redesign", or when the user provides mockups, screenshots, or design references. Do NOT use for backend logic, API design, database schemas, or non-visual code tasks.