docs: add minimal, trial-basis Spec Kit Constitution (dogfooding)#2699
Open
PascalThuet wants to merge 6 commits into
Open
docs: add minimal, trial-basis Spec Kit Constitution (dogfooding)#2699PascalThuet wants to merge 6 commits into
PascalThuet wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
Add memory/constitution.md establishing two principles for work in this repository: - Selective Spec-Driven Development: SDD applies when scope is non-trivial, design is ambiguous, impact is cross-cutting, or security/correctness is at stake. Explicit anti-theater clause forbids manufactured spec artifacts on changes that do not warrant them. - Spec-Forward, Historical Once Shipped: specs describe work to be done; once shipped they are frozen snapshots, not living documents. Stance per maintainer guidance in Discussion github#2504. Compliance review is MAY, not MUST: Principle I is a judgment call. Broader principles (agent neutrality, template stability, extension surfaces) are not asserted in v1.0.0 and may be added via future amendments. Refs github#2698, github#2504 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Note
Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.
Introduces an initial “Spec Kit Constitution” document to define scope, core principles, and governance/versioning rules for work in the spec-kit repository.
Changes:
- Added a new constitution document describing when Spec-Driven Development (SDD) applies
- Documented spec artifact lifecycle expectations (spec-forward; frozen once shipped)
- Defined governance and semantic versioning rules for future amendments
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Per Principle II (Spec-Forward, Historical Once Shipped), the report should be a durable snapshot. Issue github#2698 closes on merge and would become a confusing reference over time; Discussion github#2504 is durable and retained. Refs github#2698 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…n-ramp Aligns the document's register with the maintainer guidance in github#2504 ("try it out and see where it leads") instead of presenting it as fully ratified governance, and makes the PR actionable rather than purely declarative: - Drop the standalone "Governance and Agent Context Separation" principle. github#2476 is an open community question the maintainers have not settled, so ratifying a resolution overreaches. Reduced to a one-line scope boundary under Governance, explicitly framed as this repo's working split. - Keep Principle II (Spec-Forward, Historical Once Shipped) anchored to the maintainer-stated stance in github#2504, with the verbatim quote as provenance. - Reframe Principle I (Selective SDD) as proposed, non-binding contributor guidance rather than a MUST gate. - Add a "Status & Scope" note: deliberately minimal, trial-basis, loaded on demand during plan/tasks/implement (mechanism per github#2476), to be revised after first real use. - Add a "Dogfooding On-Ramp" section: names the trigger (next feature meeting Principle I), the loading mechanism, and PR github#2393 as a parked, non-blocking proof-of-concept candidate — so the document prepares an actual SDD run on a spec-kit feature instead of only describing one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
PascalThuet
changed the title
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds
memory/constitution.md, an initial Spec Kit repository constitution — the project dogfooding its own flagship artifact on itself.What this PR is: a deliberately minimal, trial-basis constitution, adopted per maintainer guidance in #2504 to "try it out and see where it leads" — not a claim of fully-settled governance. Two principles:
What it deliberately is not: it does not resolve the constitution-vs-
AGENTS.mdquestion. #2476 is still an open community debate, so that concern is reduced to a one-line scope boundary under Governance, explicitly framed as this repo's working split — not ratified as a principle.Dogfooding on-ramp
The document is the governance half of dogfooding; the operative half is running the workflow on a real feature and committing its artifacts. The PR sets that up explicitly:
plan,tasks, andimplement(per Constitution vs AGENTS.md, copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md, etc #2476), so it takes effect the moment SDD is run on a spec-kit feature.specs/<feature>/artifacts.AuthProviderreshaped twice, ~ten follow-up commits patched threat-model gaps. A retroactivespecs/auth-registry/is named as a parked, non-blocking next step.Path choice
The constitution lives at
memory/constitution.md, not.specify/memory/constitution.md. The.specify/path is for downstream projects initialized byspecify init; this repository keeps its own governance artifact at the repo root.Compliance posture
Non-binding by design. Reviewers MAY reference Principle I when asking whether a change warrants spec artifacts; whether the criteria are met is a contributor judgment call. The document explicitly avoids becoming a process tax.
Out of scope
Broader principles (agent neutrality, template stability, extension surfaces) and the constitution-vs-agent-context resolution (#2476) are not asserted in v1.0.0. They may be added via future amendments after the trial-basis document has seen real use.
Test plan
memory/constitution.mdrenders correctly on GitHubAGENTS.mdreferences the constitution without duplicating governance rules/speckit.constitutionstill targets.specify/memory/constitution.mdfor downstream projectsCloses #2698
Refs #2504
Refs #2476