leanspec-dev-process

name: leanspec-dev-process description: The end-to-end spec-issue-driven dev loop for lean-spec — spec → branch → implement → PR → merge → closure. Use when asked "how do I start work", "what's the process", "SDD loop", "spec-driven development", "how do we ship a change on lean-spec", "from scratch what do I do", or when you're about to begin a non-trivial change on codervisor/leanspec and haven't yet decided how to split spec/PR. Delegates to issue-spec (spec writing), leanspec-pre-push (pre-push checks), leanspec-pr-lifecycle (post-push), and leanspec-development (commands, CI, publishing, i18n). metadata: internal: true

leanspec-dev-process

The spec-issue-driven development (SDD) loop on lean-spec. Every non-trivial change starts as a GitHub spec issue on codervisor/leanspec, proceeds through a PR that references it, and closes when the PR merges.

Lean-spec is its own dogfood: we use the SDD loop we ship. The historical specs/ directory is frozen as a snapshot of pre-migration work; new specs are GitHub issues. This is the same shape as Onsager's and Duhem's loops — the area taxonomy and toolchain checks are lean-spec-specific.

The loop

     ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
     │                                                                 │
     │   idea/request                                                  │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   spec(<area>): ...    ← issue-spec skill                       │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   branch + implement                                            │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   leanspec-pre-push    ← merge preview, typecheck, test, clippy │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   git push → open PR (body: "Closes #N" or "Part of #N")        │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   leanspec-pr-lifecycle   ← CI triage, review, iterate          │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   merge                                                         │
     │        │                                                        │
     │        │ Closes #N → GitHub auto-closes spec                    │
     │        │ Part of #N → tick Plan items manually (pr-lifecycle)   │
     │        ↓                                                        │
     │   spec closed (Closes) OR Plan items ticked (Part of)           │
     │                                                                 │
     └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Stages

1. Write the spec

Trigger issue-spec (or say "spec this"). It creates a GitHub issue on codervisor/leanspec with:

• ## Overview, ## Design, ## Plan, ## Test, ## Alignment, ## Notes
• ## Provider impact when the change touches the provider seam
• Open questions live under ## Alignment as a ### Open questions subsection (omit if none) — leanspec-pre-push blocks on unresolved items there.
• Labels: spec, one type (feat / fix / refactor / perf), one or more area:*, one priority:*. The full area taxonomy lives in issue-spec's SKILL.md.

Hard rule: no spec → no PR, unless the PR is labeled trivial (typos, doc-only fixes, one-line obvious bug repair).

Body size: <~2000 tokens. Larger features split into parent + sub-issues via mcp__github__sub_issue_write. The SDD loop runs independently on each sub-issue; the parent tracks overall progress.

If the spec touches the provider abstraction — types in packages/ui/src/types/specs.ts, the provider trait in rust/leanspec-core/, or anything else that crosses the markdown/github backend seam — it must include ## Provider impact. This is lean-spec's analogue of Duhem's schema-impact rule: the provider seam is the central product promise (CLI/MCP/UI behave identically across backends), so changes to it are tracked explicitly.

If the spec adds or changes user-visible strings, the Plan must include locale updates for both en and zh-CN, and the i18n label is applied. The leanspec-development skill's I18N.md is canonical.

2. Resolve open questions

Before opening a PR, resolve any open questions on the spec issue thread. A spec with unanswered ### Open questions is not ready to implement — its design isn't pinned yet.

3. Branch and implement

Branch naming convention:

• Human-owned branches: any name following <type>/<short-description> (e.g. feat/github-provider, fix/cli-help-text).
• Claude-owned branches: claude/spec-<N>-<slug> or claude/<descriptor>. The harness enforces the claude/ prefix on cloud sessions.

Implement the spec's Plan items in order. Keep commits small and focused. Commit messages: imperative mood, <72 chars, types feat / fix / refactor / test / docs / chore / ci / perf (matches codervisor/CLAUDE.md).

Provider-agnostic core discipline. When working in area:provider or area:core, the lean-spec invariant is that backend-specific concerns don't leak upward. Markdown-specific frontmatter parsing belongs in the markdown provider; github-specific issue mapping belongs in the github provider; both expose the same LightweightSpec / Spec shape upward. A change that adds a backend-typed field to a shared type is a regression of this invariant and must be called out in ## Provider impact.

i18n discipline. No user-visible string ships in only one locale. The leanspec-development skill's RULES.md lists this as a mandatory rule; CI enforces parity for the locale files it knows about.

Rust discipline. All Rust code must pass cargo clippy -- -D warnings. Functions with >7 args use a params struct (enforced by clippy.toml). Don't #[allow(dead_code)] or #[allow(unused)] past a clippy warning — fix the root cause.

4. Pre-push

Trigger leanspec-pre-push (or say "ready to push"). The full checklist is in that skill; in summary:

1. Sync origin/main into the branch (CI tests a merge preview, not the branch alone). Resolve conflicts locally, never on the PR web editor.
2. pnpm typecheck (never skip before marking complete).
3. pnpm pre-push (typecheck + clippy).
4. pnpm test for the affected packages.
5. pnpm format:rust:check for Rust changes.
6. Verify a spec issue is linked, or that the PR will be labeled trivial.
7. If the spec is labeled provider-impact or i18n, confirm the corresponding evidence is in the PR.

Don't paper over warnings with --no-verify. If a hook fails, investigate.

5. Open the PR

PR body must begin with a linking line:

Under ## Delivers, list the Plan items this PR ticks (exact text from the spec's Plan). After merge, tick those checkboxes manually on the parent spec — see leanspec-pr-lifecycle.

If the PR is genuinely trivial (typo, doc-only, one-line obvious fix), apply the trivial label and skip the spec-linking requirement. Use sparingly — if reviewers flag it as needing context, escalate to a spec.

Decide before opening, not after. Answer the spec-vs-trivial gate at PR creation: pass Closes #N / Part of #N in the PR body, or pass labels: ["trivial"] to mcp__github__create_pull_request. Don't push and let a reviewer ask.

6. During review

Trigger leanspec-pr-lifecycle (or say "triage PR" / "CI is failing" / respond to a webhook). It covers:

• CI triage: build / test / lint / i18n-parity failures.
• Review-comment discipline: fix the code, don't reply per comment.
• Webhook subscription to stream CI + review events.

7. Merge

• Closes #N PRs auto-close the spec on merge.
• Part of #N / Refs #N PRs leave the spec open; tick the delivered Plan items manually on the parent spec, and if all sub-issues of a parent are closed, ping the parent. See leanspec-pr-lifecycle.
• For PRs labeled provider-impact, append the change to CHANGELOG.md under the next-version heading. The leanspec-development skill's "Changelog" section is the format reference.

8. Closed-unmerged path

If you close a PR without merging (e.g. abandoned approach), the spec issue stays open as-is — the next implementer can pick it up from there.

The trivial escape hatch

Not every change needs a spec. The trivial label on a PR explicitly opts out. Use for:

• Typos in comments, docs, commit messages.
• One-line obvious bug fixes where the repro is in the diff itself.
• Formatting-only changes.
• Dependency version bumps (unless they break APIs).

Do NOT use for:

• Anything touching multiple files.
• Anything that changes the provider abstraction.
• Anything adding or changing a user-visible string (i18n parity is mandatory).
• Anything that could plausibly merit a follow-up.

When in doubt, write the spec.

Issue progress is the source of truth

A spec issue's open/closed state plus its Plan checkboxes are the source of truth. Use Closes #N only on a PR that delivers the final unticked Plan items, so GitHub's auto-close fires once the spec is actually complete; use Part of #N for partial slices that leave items behind, then tick the delivered checkboxes manually on merge. If a multi-PR spec finishes via Part of PRs only, a human closes the parent once the last Plan item ticks. Plan-item ticks on merge are manual; leanspec-pr-lifecycle covers the mechanics.

Anti-patterns (don't)

• PR without a spec and no trivial label. Reviewers will ask; the PR should not merge until the author either adds a spec link or the trivial label.
• Closing a spec manually when you meant Closes #N. Let GitHub do it via the PR merge so the timeline has the auditable link.
• Editing Plan checkboxes to mark items done before the PR merges. Tick them on merge, not before.
• Provider change without ## Provider impact callout. The provider seam is the central product promise; mis-tracking a change to it corrupts the signal for users adopting different backends.
• User-visible string in only one locale. Both en and zh-CN ship together, every time.
• Skipping leanspec-pre-push. Even a thin checklist catches the cheap mistakes; the typecheck/clippy gate exists because CI re-runs these and slow CI cycles cost more than local cycles.
• Authoring a new specs/NNN-slug/ directory. The file-based corpus is frozen post-migration. New work is GitHub issues.

Delegation map

Relationship to Onsager / Duhem dev process

Lean-spec, Onsager, and Duhem share the SDD shape but live in separate repos with separate skills. When working on lean-spec, use this loop. The methodology itself comes from lean-spec — Onsager and Duhem are downstream adopters of the framework lean-spec defines. That's another reason to dogfood it here: if the SDD loop is awkward on lean-spec's own repo, that's a signal for the next iteration of the product.