chore: harden SDD governance workflow
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
## Why
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Explain the motivation for this change. What problem does this solve? Why now? -->
|
||||
|
||||
## What Changes
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Describe the intended outcome and explicit non-goals without technologies,
|
||||
APIs, files, dependencies or implementation decisions. -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
### New Capabilities
|
||||
<!-- Capabilities being introduced. Use kebab-case for path segments you introduce
|
||||
(e.g., user-auth or identity/user-auth) that follow the project's existing
|
||||
spec organization. Each creates specs/<capability-path>/spec.md. -->
|
||||
- `<capability-path>`: <brief description of what this capability covers>
|
||||
|
||||
### Modified Capabilities
|
||||
<!-- Existing capabilities whose REQUIREMENTS are changing (not just implementation).
|
||||
Only list here if spec-level behavior changes. Each needs a delta spec file.
|
||||
Use the exact existing path under openspec/specs/. Leave empty if no requirement
|
||||
changes. A change with no capabilities at all (pure refactor, tooling, docs)
|
||||
must set `skip_specs: true` in its .openspec.yaml - openspec validate rejects
|
||||
a zero-delta change without that marker. Do not invent a requirement just to
|
||||
satisfy validation. -->
|
||||
- `<existing-capability-path>`: <what requirement is changing>
|
||||
|
||||
## Impact
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- Affected users, processes or system areas at scope level only. -->
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user