본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

feature-spec

Write a concise feature spec for engineering handoff. Use when the user says "write a spec", "feature spec", "one-pager for eng", "spec this out", "write up this feature", "I need to hand this off to engineering", "shape this up", or wants a concise technical brief - even if they don't say "feature spec".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

연동 도구Figma
설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Overview

Based on Shape Up by Ryan Singer (Basecamp). A feature spec is not a PRD. A PRD justifies building something. A spec tells engineers exactly what to build - but at the right altitude. Shape Up's principle: give engineers a shaped problem with clear boundaries, not a detailed recipe. Ambiguity in the spec becomes a bug in production. Over-specification kills ownership.

Workflow

Step 1: Write the header

# Feature Spec: [Feature Name]
**PM:** [your name]
**Eng Lead:** [engineer name]
**Appetite:** [1-2 weeks / 4-6 weeks]
**Status:** Draft | In Review | Approved
**Related PRD / Ticket:** [link]

Step 2: Write the Problem (2-3 sentences)

What is broken or missing? Who is affected? Shape Up framing: "Jobs to be done" - what job is the user hiring this feature to do?

Step 3: Write the Solution at the right altitude

Shape Up's "fat marker sketch" - describe the solution broadly. Engineers need room to make technical decisions. Write at the level of user-visible behavior, not implementation.

Structure:

  • Key interactions - what users can do (not how)
  • Boundaries - explicit scope limits
  • Rabbit holes - specific traps to avoid

Step 4: Write Functional Requirements

Number each. Cover in order:

  1. Happy path
  2. Error states
  3. Empty states
  4. Edge cases

Step 5: Write Non-Functional Requirements

Only include what's genuinely constrained:

  • Performance targets
  • Accessibility level (WCAG AA minimum)
  • Browser/device support
  • Security or compliance requirements

Don't pad. If there's no real constraint, don't list one.

Step 6: Define No-Gos (Shape Up)

Explicit list of what this spec does NOT include. This is Shape Up's most important contribution to spec writing - stating what you're NOT building is as important as what you are.

Step 7: List Open Questions

Q: [question]
Owner: [name]
Due: [date]

No spec should be approved with unresolved questions. Assign owners.

Step 8: Link assets

Figma files, API specs, data models. A spec without visuals is incomplete for UI work.

Anti-Patterns

1. Over-specifying implementation Bad: "The button is blue, 48px, positioned top-right with 16px margin." Good: "Users can trigger X from the main action area. Exact placement per Figma [link]." Shape Up: over-speccing removes creative ownership from engineers and designers.

2. Missing error states Bad: "User submits the form and sees confirmation." Good: Cover success, validation error, server error, empty state, and loading state.

3. No rabbit holes section Bad: Spec that describes what to build but not what to avoid. Good: "Don't rebuild the notification system for this - use existing email infrastructure."

4. Spec approved with open questions Bad: "TBD" items in an approved spec. Good: All open questions resolved or explicitly deferred with a named owner and date.

Quality Checklist

  • Appetite defined (small or big batch)
  • Problem framed as "job to be done"
  • Solution at the right altitude - behavior not implementation
  • Requirements cover happy path, errors, empty states, edge cases
  • No-Gos explicitly listed
  • Rabbit holes called out
  • Open questions have owners and due dates
  • Figma / mockup links included for UI work
  • Spec fits on one page (split if it doesn't)

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

qa-aman의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고