skills/technical-spec-template/SKILL.md
Create structured technical specification documents that bridge product requirements and engineering implementation. Use when writing a tech spec, engineering spec, system design doc, or API specification. Produces a complete spec with problem statement, proposed solution, data model, API design, alternatives considered, security considerations, testing plan, and rollout strategy.
npx skillsauth add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills technical-spec-templateInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Write technical specifications that engineers actually read — clear problem framing, unambiguous requirements, explicit decisions, and documented trade-offs.
Ask the user for these if not provided:
Write a tech spec when:
Skip the spec for trivial bug fixes or 1-2 hour changes.
Author: [Name] Status: Draft | In Review | Approved | Implemented Created: [Date] | Last Updated: [Date] Reviewers: [Eng Lead, Architect, PM, Security if needed] Related PRD: [Link] | Jira Epic: [Link]
[2–3 sentences. What problem are we solving and why now? No solution language here.]
Goals (in scope):
Non-Goals (explicitly out of scope):
[Any prior art, related systems, or context engineers need to understand the decision space. Link to previous specs, ADRs, or research.]
High-Level Approach: [2–4 sentences describing the chosen solution. Why this approach vs alternatives?]
System Architecture Diagram: [Describe or embed: which services are involved, how data flows, what APIs are called]
Data Model Changes:
-- New tables or schema changes
[Include DDL or schema definition]
API Design:
[Endpoint] [Method]
Request: { [fields and types] }
Response: { [fields and types] }
Error codes: [list]
Key Implementation Details:
| Option | Pros | Cons | Why Rejected | |---|---|---|---| | [Alt 1] | [Benefits] | [Drawbacks] | [Reason not chosen] | | [Alt 2] | [Benefits] | [Drawbacks] | [Reason not chosen] |
| Question | Owner | Due Date | Resolution | |---|---|---|---| | [Unresolved question] | [Name] | [Date] | [Pending] |
| Phase | Work | Estimated Effort | |---|---|---| | [Phase 1] | [What gets built] | [X days/points] | | [Phase 2] | [What gets built] | [X days/points] | | Total | | [X story points] |
business
Analyze why deals are won and lost and turn it into an action plan. Use when asked to run a win/loss analysis, review closed-won and closed-lost deals, understand why the team is losing to a competitor, or summarize sales feedback into patterns. Produces a structured win/loss report with themes, win/loss rates by segment and competitor, representative quotes, and prioritized actions for product, marketing, and sales.
development
Route a fuzzy request to the right skill in this library. Use when the user is unsure which skill fits, asks 'which skill should I use for X', describes a task without naming a skill, or when a request could plausibly match several skills. Produces a best-fit recommendation with the inputs to gather, a runner-up with the tie-breaker, and a workflow recipe when the job spans multiple skills.
testing
Triage a vulnerability or scanner finding — assess real severity, exploitability, and how urgently to fix. Use when asked to triage a CVE, prioritize scanner/pentest findings, assess a vuln's risk, or decide what to patch first. Produces a triage verdict: CVSS-informed severity adjusted for your context, exploitability, real risk, a fix/mitigation, and an SLA — so you fix what matters, not just what's red.
development
Stand up a Voice of Customer (VoC) program that turns feedback into action. Use when asked to build a VoC program, design a customer feedback loop, consolidate feedback sources, or set up a closed-loop feedback process. Produces a VoC program design — objectives, feedback sources and channels, a taxonomy, collection and analysis cadence, closed-loop routing, ownership, and success metrics.