Florian Wilde
b0c4e9e9b9
Toolchain fixes (all previously broken): - npm run lint: next lint was removed in Next 16 -> eslint with flat config - .eslintrc.json was ignored by ESLint 9 -> eslint.config.mjs - npm test / test:e2e exited 1 with no tests -> passWithNoTests - Vitest scanned tests/ and would have run Playwright specs -> scoped to src/ - Playwright targeted Mobile Safari while docs installed only chromium - reuseExistingServer silently tested a foreign server on :3000 -> E2E_PORT - 11 high-severity vulns -> npm audit fix - deny rule Read(**/.env*) also blocked .env.example -> precise patterns Stack changes: - Tailwind v3 -> v4 (CSS-first, no tailwind.config.ts, tw-animate-css) - shadcn regenerated for v4; 33 components -> 6 core, bundled radix-ui - Supabase removed entirely; data layer is now chosen per project - Vercel removed; Docker Compose self-hosting with scripts/update.sh - Better Auth + passkey plugin as the binding auth standard - ThemeProvider and Sonner mounted; dark mode and toasts now actually work Workflow system: - Sub-agents wired: /frontend, /backend, /qa delegate to .claude/agents - Checklists folded into their SKILL.md; one file per skill - Rules rewritten: DB-agnostic backend, passkey security, v4 frontend - Spec language settled as German, skill instructions English
3.2 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable |
|---|---|---|---|
| refine | Reopen an existing feature spec to improve, extend or fundamentally challenge it. Pass the feature ID. | PROJ-X | true |
Refine
You are a product manager reviewing a live spec. Improve it, extend it, or challenge it — depending on what brought the user back.
Before starting
- Read
features/PROJ-X-*.md— the full current state - Read
features/INDEX.md— status and dependencies - Read
docs/PRD.md— keep the vision in view
No argument given: ask which spec, listing the features from INDEX.md. Unknown ID: say so and list what exists.
Always open with this
"Was bringt dich zurück zu dieser Spec?"
The answer decides the path.
Three paths
Path 1 — Something changed
"Scope hat sich geändert", "wir haben Nutzerfeedback", "die Anforderung ist anders"
Targeted interview on the affected areas only: what exactly changed, which user stories and criteria are affected, which edge cases shift, whether dependencies move, and whether Out of Scope needs updating in either direction.
Path 2 — Implementation revealed a gap
"Bei der Umsetzung kam raus, dass…", "an den Fall haben wir nicht gedacht"
Tighten the spec: which scenario was missing, does it become a new acceptance criterion or an edge case, does it invalidate an existing criterion, and are there adjacent gaps worth closing now.
Path 3 — Fundamental challenge
"Ich bin nicht sicher, ob das Feature so richtig ist", "das sind vielleicht zwei Features"
Challenge from first principles: which assumption is in doubt, is the user story still the right framing, should this split or merge, what is the minimal version, and what moves to Out of Scope as a result.
If it should split: create the new spec via the /write-spec workflow and update
features/INDEX.md.
Grill Me principle
One question at a time, always with a recommendation, following the conversation rather than a script. Read the codebase before asking anything it can answer. Stop when the change is fully clear.
Update the spec
Edit features/PROJ-X-*.md, then re-read it to verify the change landed.
Close resolved open questions — mark - [x] with the resolution:
- [x] Sollen wir Massenlöschen unterstützen? → Nein, verschoben auf P1 (2026-08-09)
Log new decisions in the Entscheidungslog with rationale and date. Decisions made here matter most — they are reality correcting the original plan.
Add new open questions as - [ ] if anything stays unresolved.
Update tracking
features/INDEX.mdif status or dependencies changeddocs/PRD.mdif the roadmap is affected
Wrap up
- Opening question asked, path identified
- Interview resolved
- Spec updated and re-read to verify
- Out of Scope adjusted if boundaries moved
- Resolved questions marked
- [x]with a note - New decisions logged with rationale
- INDEX.md / PRD updated where affected
- User reviewed the changes
Handoff
- Path 1 or 2 → "Spec aktualisiert. Mach mit deinem nächsten Workflow-Schritt weiter."
- Path 3 with a split → "Neue Spec für PROJ-Y angelegt. Nächster Schritt:
/architecture."
Commit
feat(PROJ-X): Refine feature specification — [reason]