{"session_id":"019b0c20-205c-7bb3-9ec7-cbeaa608224e","ts":1765435015,"text":"\n## User Input\n\n```text\n这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite\n```\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Outline\n\nYou are updating the project constitution at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`. This file is a TEMPLATE containing placeholder tokens in square brackets (e.g. `[PROJECT_NAME]`, `[PRINCIPLE_1_NAME]`). Your job is to (a) collect/derive concrete values, (b) fill the template precisely, and (c) propagate any amendments across dependent artifacts.\n\nFollow this execution flow:\n\n1. Load the existing constitution template at `.specify/memory/constitution.md`.\n   - Identify every placeholder token of the form `[ALL_CAPS_IDENTIFIER]`.\n   **IMPORTANT**: The user might require less or more principles than the ones used in the template. If a number is specified, respect that - follow the general template. You will update the doc accordingly.\n\n2. Collect/derive values for placeholders:\n   - If user input (conversation) supplies a value, use it.\n   - Otherwise infer from existing repo context (README, docs, prior constitution versions if embedded).\n   - For governance dates: `RATIFICATION_DATE` is the original adoption date (if unknown ask or mark TODO), `LAST_AMENDED_DATE` is today if changes are made, otherwise keep previous.\n   - `CONSTITUTION_VERSION` must increment according to semantic versioning rules:\n     - MAJOR: Backward incompatible governance/principle removals or redefinitions.\n     - MINOR: New principle/section added or materially expanded guidance.\n     - PATCH: Clarifications, wording, typo fixes, non-semantic refinements.\n   - If version bump type ambiguous, propose reasoning before finalizing.\n\n3. Draft the updated constitution content:\n   - Replace every placeholder with concrete text (no bracketed tokens left except intentionally retained template slots that the project has chosen not to define yet—explicitly justify any left).\n   - Preserve heading hierarchy and comments can be removed once replaced unless they still add clarifying guidance.\n   - Ensure each Principle section: succinct name line, paragraph (or bullet list) capturing non‑negotiable rules, explicit rationale if not obvious.\n   - Ensure Governance section lists amendment procedure, versioning policy, and compliance review expectations.\n\n4. Consistency propagation checklist (convert prior checklist into active validations):\n   - Read `.specify/templates/plan-template.md` and ensure any \"Constitution Check\" or rules align with updated principles.\n   - Read `.specify/templates/spec-template.md` for scope/requirements alignment—update if constitution adds/removes mandatory sections or constraints.\n   - Read `.specify/templates/tasks-template.md` and ensure task categorization reflects new or removed principle-driven task types (e.g., observability, versioning, testing discipline).\n   - Read each command file in `.specify/templates/commands/*.md` (including this one) to verify no outdated references (agent-specific names like CLAUDE only) remain when generic guidance is required.\n   - Read any runtime guidance docs (e.g., `README.md`, `docs/quickstart.md`, or agent-specific guidance files if present). Update references to principles changed.\n\n5. Produce a Sync Impact Report (prepend as an HTML comment at top of the constitution file after update):\n   - Version change: old → new\n   - List of modified principles (old title → new title if renamed)\n   - Added sections\n   - Removed sections\n   - Templates requiring updates (✅ updated / ⚠ pending) with file paths\n   - Follow-up TODOs if any placeholders intentionally deferred.\n\n6. Validation before final output:\n   - No remaining unexplained bracket tokens.\n   - Version line matches report.\n   - Dates ISO format YYYY-MM-DD.\n   - Principles are declarative, testable, and free of vague language (\"should\" → replace with MUST/SHOULD rationale where appropriate).\n\n7. Write the completed constitution back to `.specify/memory/constitution.md` (overwrite).\n\n8. Output a final summary to the user with:\n   - New version and bump rationale.\n   - Any files flagged for manual follow-up.\n   - Suggested commit message (e.g., `docs: amend constitution to vX.Y.Z (principle additions + governance update)`).\n\nFormatting & Style Requirements:\n\n- Use Markdown headings exactly as in the template (do not demote/promote levels).\n- Wrap long rationale lines to keep readability (<100 chars ideally) but do not hard enforce with awkward breaks.\n- Keep a single blank line between sections.\n- Avoid trailing whitespace.\n\nIf the user supplies partial updates (e.g., only one principle revision), still perform validation and version decision steps.\n\nIf critical info missing (e.g., ratification date truly unknown), insert `TODO(<FIELD_NAME>): explanation` and include in the Sync Impact Report under deferred items.\n\nDo not create a new template; always operate on the existing `.specify/memory/constitution.md` file.\n"}
{"session_id":"019b0c20-205c-7bb3-9ec7-cbeaa608224e","ts":1765435285,"text":"重新生成, 内容要用简体中文表示"}
{"session_id":"019b0c20-205c-7bb3-9ec7-cbeaa608224e","ts":1765435617,"text":"\n## User Input\n\n```text\n/constitution 这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite\n```\n\nYou **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).\n\n## Outline\n\nThe text the user typed after `/speckit.specify` in the triggering message **is** the feature description. Assume you always have it available in this conversation even if `/constitution 这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite` appears literally below. Do not ask the user to repeat it unless they provided an empty command.\n\nGiven that feature description, do this:\n\n1. **Generate a concise short name** (2-4 words) for the branch:\n   - Analyze the feature description and extract the most meaningful keywords\n   - Create a 2-4 word short name that captures the essence of the feature\n   - Use action-noun format when possible (e.g., \"add-user-auth\", \"fix-payment-bug\")\n   - Preserve technical terms and acronyms (OAuth2, API, JWT, etc.)\n   - Keep it concise but descriptive enough to understand the feature at a glance\n   - Examples:\n     - \"I want to add user authentication\" → \"user-auth\"\n     - \"Implement OAuth2 integration for the API\" → \"oauth2-api-integration\"\n     - \"Create a dashboard for analytics\" → \"analytics-dashboard\"\n     - \"Fix payment processing timeout bug\" → \"fix-payment-timeout\"\n\n2. **Check for existing branches before creating new one**:\n\n   a. First, fetch all remote branches to ensure we have the latest information:\n\n      ```bash\n      git fetch --all --prune\n      ```\n\n   b. Find the highest feature number across all sources for the short-name:\n      - Remote branches: `git ls-remote --heads origin | grep -E 'refs/heads/[0-9]+-<short-name>$'`\n      - Local branches: `git branch | grep -E '^[* ]*[0-9]+-<short-name>$'`\n      - Specs directories: Check for directories matching `specs/[0-9]+-<short-name>`\n\n   c. Determine the next available number:\n      - Extract all numbers from all three sources\n      - Find the highest number N\n      - Use N+1 for the new branch number\n\n   d. Run the script `.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh --json \"/constitution 这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite\"` with the calculated number and short-name:\n      - Pass `--number N+1` and `--short-name \"your-short-name\"` along with the feature description\n      - Bash example: `.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh --json \"/constitution 这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite\" --json --number 5 --short-name \"user-auth\" \"Add user authentication\"`\n      - PowerShell example: `.specify/scripts/bash/create-new-feature.sh --json \"/constitution 这是一个工具集网站，提供各种工具给用户使用，页面要尽量精致优美，用户体验良好，项目同时包含管理后台和前端展示页面，要有统一的 ui 规范，前端代码要遵守规范，不要做太多无用的测试，技术用 react + typescript + tailwindcss + shadcn/ui + vite\" -Json -Number 5 -ShortName \"user-auth\" \"Add user authentication\"`\n\n   **IMPORTANT**:\n   - Check all three sources (remote branches, local branches, specs directories) to find the highest number\n   - Only match branches/directories with the exact short-name pattern\n   - If no existing branches/directories found with this short-name, start with number 1\n   - You must only ever run this script once per feature\n   - The JSON is provided in the terminal as output - always refer to it to get the actual content you're looking for\n   - The JSON output will contain BRANCH_NAME and SPEC_FILE paths\n   - For single quotes in args like \"I'm Groot\", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'\\''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: \"I'm Groot\")\n\n3. Load `.specify/templates/spec-template.md` to understand required sections.\n\n4. Follow this execution flow:\n\n    1. Parse user description from Input\n       If empty: ERROR \"No feature description provided\"\n    2. Extract key concepts from description\n       Identify: actors, actions, data, constraints\n    3. For unclear aspects:\n       - Make informed guesses based on context and industry standards\n       - Only mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] if:\n         - The choice significantly impacts feature scope or user experience\n         - Multiple reasonable interpretations exist with different implications\n         - No reasonable default exists\n       - **LIMIT: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers total**\n       - Prioritize clarifications by impact: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details\n    4. Fill User Scenarios & Testing section\n       If no clear user flow: ERROR \"Cannot determine user scenarios\"\n    5. Generate Functional Requirements\n       Each requirement must be testable\n       Use reasonable defaults for unspecified details (document assumptions in Assumptions section)\n    6. Define Success Criteria\n       Create measurable, technology-agnostic outcomes\n       Include both quantitative metrics (time, performance, volume) and qualitative measures (user satisfaction, task completion)\n       Each criterion must be verifiable without implementation details\n    7. Identify Key Entities (if data involved)\n    8. Return: SUCCESS (spec ready for planning)\n\n5. Write the specification to SPEC_FILE using the template structure, replacing placeholders with concrete details derived from the feature description (arguments) while preserving section order and headings.\n\n6. **Specification Quality Validation**: After writing the initial spec, validate it against quality criteria:\n\n   a. **Create Spec Quality Checklist**: Generate a checklist file at `FEATURE_DIR/checklists/requirements.md` using the checklist template structure with these validation items:\n\n      ```markdown\n      # Specification Quality Checklist: [FEATURE NAME]\n      \n      **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning\n      **Created**: [DATE]\n      **Feature**: [Link to spec.md]\n      \n      ## Content Quality\n      \n      - [ ] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)\n      - [ ] Focused on user value and business needs\n      - [ ] Written for non-technical stakeholders\n      - [ ] All mandatory sections completed\n      \n      ## Requirement Completeness\n      \n      - [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain\n      - [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous\n      - [ ] Success criteria are measurable\n      - [ ] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)\n      - [ ] All acceptance scenarios are defined\n      - [ ] Edge cases are identified\n      - [ ] Scope is clearly bounded\n      - [ ] Dependencies and assumptions identified\n      \n      ## Feature Readiness\n      \n      - [ ] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria\n      - [ ] User scenarios cover primary flows\n      - [ ] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria\n      - [ ] No implementation details leak into specification\n      \n      ## Notes\n      \n      - Items marked incomplete require spec updates before `/speckit.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`\n      ```\n\n   b. **Run Validation Check**: Review the spec against each checklist item:\n      - For each item, determine if it passes or fails\n      - Document specific issues found (quote relevant spec sections)\n\n   c. **Handle Validation Results**:\n\n      - **If all items pass**: Mark checklist complete and proceed to step 6\n\n      - **If items fail (excluding [NEEDS CLARIFICATION])**:\n        1. List the failing items and specific issues\n        2. Update the spec to address each issue\n        3. Re-run validation until all items pass (max 3 iterations)\n        4. If still failing after 3 iterations, document remaining issues in checklist notes and warn user\n\n      - **If [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain**:\n        1. Extract all [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...] markers from the spec\n        2. **LIMIT CHECK**: If more than 3 markers exist, keep only the 3 most critical (by scope/security/UX impact) and make informed guesses for the rest\n        3. For each clarification needed (max 3), present options to user in this format:\n\n           ```markdown\n           ## Question [N]: [Topic]\n           \n           **Context**: [Quote relevant spec section]\n           \n           **What we need to know**: [Specific question from NEEDS CLARIFICATION marker]\n           \n           **Suggested Answers**:\n           \n           | Option | Answer | Implications |\n           |--------|--------|--------------|\n           | A      | [First suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |\n           | B      | [Second suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |\n           | C      | [Third suggested answer] | [What this means for the feature] |\n           | Custom | Provide your own answer | [Explain how to provide custom input] |\n           \n           **Your choice**: _[Wait for user response]_\n           ```\n\n        4. **CRITICAL - Table Formatting**: Ensure markdown tables are properly formatted:\n           - Use consistent spacing with pipes aligned\n           - Each cell should have spaces around content: `| Content |` not `|Content|`\n           - Header separator must have at least 3 dashes: `|--------|`\n           - Test that the table renders correctly in markdown preview\n        5. Number questions sequentially (Q1, Q2, Q3 - max 3 total)\n        6. Present all questions together before waiting for responses\n        7. Wait for user to respond with their choices for all questions (e.g., \"Q1: A, Q2: Custom - [details], Q3: B\")\n        8. Update the spec by replacing each [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] marker with the user's selected or provided answer\n        9. Re-run validation after all clarifications are resolved\n\n   d. **Update Checklist**: After each validation iteration, update the checklist file with current pass/fail status\n\n7. Report completion with branch name, spec file path, checklist results, and readiness for the next phase (`/speckit.clarify` or `/speckit.plan`).\n\n**NOTE:** The script creates and checks out the new branch and initializes the spec file before writing.\n\n## General Guidelines\n\n## Quick Guidelines\n\n- Focus on **WHAT** users need and **WHY**.\n- Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure).\n- Written for business stakeholders, not developers.\n- DO NOT create any checklists that are embedded in the spec. That will be a separate command.\n\n### Section Requirements\n\n- **Mandatory sections**: Must be completed for every feature\n- **Optional sections**: Include only when relevant to the feature\n- When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as \"N/A\")\n\n### For AI Generation\n\nWhen creating this spec from a user prompt:\n\n1. **Make informed guesses**: Use context, industry standards, and common patterns to fill gaps\n2. **Document assumptions**: Record reasonable defaults in the Assumptions section\n3. **Limit clarifications**: Maximum 3 [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers - use only for critical decisions that:\n   - Significantly impact feature scope or user experience\n   - Have multiple reasonable interpretations with different implications\n   - Lack any reasonable default\n4. **Prioritize clarifications**: scope > security/privacy > user experience > technical details\n5. **Think like a tester**: Every vague requirement should fail the \"testable and unambiguous\" checklist item\n6. **Common areas needing clarification** (only if no reasonable default exists):\n   - Feature scope and boundaries (include/exclude specific use cases)\n   - User types and permissions (if multiple conflicting interpretations possible)\n   - Security/compliance requirements (when legally/financially significant)\n\n**Examples of reasonable defaults** (don't ask about these):\n\n- Data retention: Industry-standard practices for the domain\n- Performance targets: Standard web/mobile app expectations unless specified\n- Error handling: User-friendly messages with appropriate fallbacks\n- Authentication method: Standard session-based or OAuth2 for web apps\n- Integration patterns: RESTful APIs unless specified otherwise\n\n### Success Criteria Guidelines\n\nSuccess criteria must be:\n\n1. **Measurable**: Include specific metrics (time, percentage, count, rate)\n2. **Technology-agnostic**: No mention of frameworks, languages, databases, or tools\n3. **User-focused**: Describe outcomes from user/business perspective, not system internals\n4. **Verifiable**: Can be tested/validated without knowing implementation details\n\n**Good examples**:\n\n- \"Users can complete checkout in under 3 minutes\"\n- \"System supports 10,000 concurrent users\"\n- \"95% of searches return results in under 1 second\"\n- \"Task completion rate improves by 40%\"\n\n**Bad examples** (implementation-focused):\n\n- \"API response time is under 200ms\" (too technical, use \"Users see results instantly\")\n- \"Database can handle 1000 TPS\" (implementation detail, use user-facing metric)\n- \"React components render efficiently\" (framework-specific)\n- \"Redis cache hit rate above 80%\" (technology-specific)\n"}