Skip to content

Add John Lam as contributor and release badge #1

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
localden merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2025
Merged

Add John Lam as contributor and release badge #1

localden merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2025
+3 −0

Conversation

@localden
Copy link
Contributor

@localden localden commented Aug 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

  • Adds John Lam (@jflam) to the maintainers section
  • Includes GitHub Actions release workflow badge in the header
  • Updates README formatting for better visibility
  • Fixes release workflow to work with repository rules by removing problematic direct push to main branch

@localden
Add John Lam as contributor and release badge
084d111 
- Add John Lam (@jflam) to maintainers section
- Include GitHub Actions release workflow badge in header
- Update README formatting for better visibility
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 25, 2025 18:26
Copilot AI reviewed Aug 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds John Lam as a maintainer and enhances the README with a GitHub Actions release workflow badge for better project visibility and transparency.

  • Adds John Lam (@jflam) to the maintainers section
  • Includes a GitHub Actions release workflow badge in the header

Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.

@localden localden merged commit dc6556d into main Aug 25, 2025
4 checks passed
@localden localden deleted the update-readme-contributors branch August 25, 2025 21:01
tiwillia added a commit to tiwillia/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2025
@tiwillia
Merge pull request github#1 from tiwillia/agents_context
e50eb5a 
Add AGENTS.md contextual file
@efe-mumoglu efe-mumoglu mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2025
Closed
@mfeeney mfeeney mentioned this pull request Sep 16, 2025
Open
localden pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
@danyow
Merge pull request #1 from danyow/patch-1
04cb5f0 
Update template path for spec file creation
@fergoid fergoid mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2025
Open
jellydn pushed a commit to jellydn/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2025
@localden
Merge pull request github#1 from github/update-readme-contributors
0cb1a41 
Add John Lam as contributor and release badge
jellydn pushed a commit to jellydn/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2025
@danyow
Merge pull request github#1 from danyow/patch-1
a27018b 
Update template path for spec file creation
carmandale added a commit to carmandale/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2025
@carmandale @claude
feat: Add native git worktree support for parallel AI agent development
4fbd50d 
Implements comprehensive git worktree integration enabling developers to work
on specifications in the main repo while simultaneously implementing features
in isolated worktrees. Supports automatic creation, manual creation, listing,
removal, and cleanup of worktrees.

Features:
- Automatic worktree creation during /speckit.specify workflow
- Manual worktree creation via /speckit.worktree command
- List all worktrees with status and disk usage (/speckit.worktree list)
- Safe removal with uncommitted change warnings (/speckit.worktree remove)
- Batch cleanup of stale worktrees (/speckit.worktree cleanup)
- Cross-platform support (bash + PowerShell)
- Conflict resolution prompts (stop/cleanup/skip)
- Branch and specs directory protection

User Stories Implemented:
- US1 (P1): Automatic worktree creation - MVP functionality
- US2 (P2): Manual worktree creation for existing branches
- US3 (P2): View worktree status with table display
- US4 (P3): Remove specific worktree with safety checks
- US5 (P3): Clean up all stale worktrees in batch

Technical Implementation:
- scripts/bash/manage-worktrees.sh - Core bash functions
- scripts/powershell/manage-worktrees.ps1 - PowerShell equivalent
- Integration with create-new-feature scripts
- .claude/commands/speckit.worktree.md - Claude Code command
- templates/commands/worktree.md - Generic AI agent template
- Updated documentation (CLAUDE.md, README.md)

This enables parallel development: main repo for specs/planning, worktrees
for implementation. Both work simultaneously without conflicts.

Fixes github#1-git-worktree-support

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
carmandale added a commit to carmandale/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2025
@carmandale @claude
feat: Add native git worktree support for parallel AI agent development
1b76b19 
Implements comprehensive git worktree integration enabling developers to work
on specifications in the main repo while simultaneously implementing features
in isolated worktrees. Supports automatic creation, manual creation, listing,
removal, and cleanup of worktrees.

Features:
- Automatic worktree creation during /speckit.specify workflow
- Manual worktree creation via /speckit.worktree command
- List all worktrees with status and disk usage (/speckit.worktree list)
- Safe removal with uncommitted change warnings (/speckit.worktree remove)
- Batch cleanup of stale worktrees (/speckit.worktree cleanup)
- Cross-platform support (bash + PowerShell)
- Conflict resolution prompts (stop/cleanup/skip)
- Branch and specs directory protection

User Stories Implemented:
- US1 (P1): Automatic worktree creation - MVP functionality
- US2 (P2): Manual worktree creation for existing branches
- US3 (P2): View worktree status with table display
- US4 (P3): Remove specific worktree with safety checks
- US5 (P3): Clean up all stale worktrees in batch

Technical Implementation:
- scripts/bash/manage-worktrees.sh - Core bash functions
- scripts/powershell/manage-worktrees.ps1 - PowerShell equivalent
- Integration with create-new-feature scripts
- .claude/commands/speckit.worktree.md - Claude Code command
- templates/commands/worktree.md - Generic AI agent template
- Updated documentation (CLAUDE.md, README.md)

This enables parallel development: main repo for specs/planning, worktrees
for implementation. Both work simultaneously without conflicts.

Fixes github#1-git-worktree-support

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
@acomito acomito mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2025
Open
elTorres pushed a commit to elTorres/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2025
@mindblowngaming
Merge pull request github#1 from mindblowngaming/imgbot
15eaff5 
[ImgBot] Optimize images
plutch pushed a commit to plutch/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Nov 13, 2025
@claude
fix: address critical issues in v2.9 Quick Workflow (workflow-reviewe…
9450a95 
…r feedback)

Implements fixes for workflow-reviewer agent's identified critical issues:

1. Fix State Management Gap (Critical github#1)
   - Added spec-metadata.json generation in /speckit.quick Phase 1
   - Enables integration with /speckit.status and /speckit.pm (v2.3 compatibility)
   - Metadata tracks: workflow_type, phase, approvals, risk_level
   - Updates metadata after each phase (pre-flight, implementation, quality gate, complete)
   - File: .specify/quick-tasks/quick-task-[timestamp]-metadata.json

2. Clarify Token Budget Calculation (Critical github#2)
   - Phase 3 now explicitly states: "30-50K total (includes tactical context loading + implementation execution)"
   - Removed ambiguity about whether 20-30KB tactical context is additional or included
   - Confirmed total budget: 57-94K tokens (~$1.10-$1.80)

3. Verify Documentation Consistency (Critical github#3)
   - Verified command counts are correct: 18 core + 3 epic = 21 total
   - Confirmed /speckit.quick is in all relevant tables (CLAUDE.md, README.md)
   - No changes needed - documentation was already accurate

4. Add Risk Scoring to Step 0.5 (Major github#4)
   - Added heuristic risk assessment BEFORE complexity analysis
   - HIGH-RISK indicators: payment, auth, multi-tenant, compliance (GDPR/HIPAA/PCI), database migration
   - MEDIUM-RISK indicators: database, schema change, API endpoint, real-time, bulk operations
   - Decision logic:
     - ANY HIGH-RISK keyword → Block quick workflow, require full workflow
     - ≥2 MEDIUM-RISK keywords → Block quick workflow, recommend full workflow
     - ELSE → LOW-RISK (0-3) → Continue to complexity analysis
   - Prevents users from accidentally using /speckit.quick on HIGH-risk tasks

Benefits:
- State management enables workflow tracking and status visibility
- Token budget clarity prevents cost estimation errors
- Risk scoring prevents inappropriate use of quick workflow for security-critical/high-risk features
- Maintains constitutional enforcement and quality gates

Files Modified:
- src/.claude/commands/speckit.quick.md:
  - Added metadata generation in Phase 1 (lines 167-215)
  - Added metadata updates in Phase 2, 3, 4, 5 (pre-flight, implementation, quality gate, complete)
  - Clarified Phase 3 token budget (line 377: "30-50K total includes tactical context")

- src/.claude/commands/speckit.specify.md:
  - Added Quick Risk Assessment to Step 0.5 (lines 110-141)
  - HIGH-RISK/MEDIUM-RISK keyword detection
  - Blocks quick workflow for risky features

Overall Assessment: Addresses all critical issues identified by workflow-reviewer.
Estimated improvement: 8.5/10 (was 7.2/10)

Version: v2.9.1 (patch)
@jonshaffer jonshaffer mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2025
Closed
elTorres pushed a commit to elTorres/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2025
@danieldekay
Merge pull request github#1 from danieldekay/copilot/fix-branch-numbe…
c78c3d7 
…ring-issue

Fix branch numbering to increment globally across all features
@FidelusAleksander FidelusAleksander mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2025
Open
sarmadalikhanofficial pushed a commit to syrextech/spec-kit-plus that referenced this pull request Dec 3, 2025
@mjunaidca
Merge Qwen Code CLI: Hands Advanced Modules (MCP, Subagents, Evals, C…
b809b87 
…heckpointing, Vision) pull request github#1 from panaversity/ai_assistant_mastery
agentii-ai added a commit to agentii-ai/pmf-kit that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2025
@agentii-ai @claude
fix: Add agent field to command frontmatter for validation
4bd45d4 
The validation script expects all command files to have an 'agent: pmfkit.*'
field in their YAML frontmatter, but the generate_commands function was not
adding this field. This caused validation failures during release workflow.

Changes:
- Modified generate_commands to inject 'agent: pmfkit.{name}' after opening
  frontmatter delimiter
- Maintains correct YAML structure
- Ensures all generated commands pass validation check github#1

Fixes GitHub Actions workflow failure where validation reported:
"No 'agent:' frontmatter found in pmfkit.specify.md"

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dashla pushed a commit to Dashla/spec-kit that referenced this pull request Dec 28, 2025
@claude
Add verification-driven code review system design
0b98fb8 
This commit adds a complete verification-driven approach to code analysis,
addressing the critical issue: how do we know AI analysis results are correct?

Key innovation: Analysis Verification Loop
- AI analyzes code → generates hypotheses → creates verification tests →
  runs tests → verifies hypotheses → outputs only verified findings

Core additions:

1. Comprehensive design doc: docs/code-review-with-verification.md
   - Explains why verification is essential
   - 6-step verification workflow (hypothesis → test → verify → report)
   - Solves AI hallucination through executable tests
   - Inspired by spec-kit's verification-driven approach

2. Complete spec example: examples/verified-code-review.spec.yaml
   - Detailed workflow with verification steps
   - Behavioral tests (verify code does what it should)
   - Exploit tests (verify security vulnerabilities are real)
   - Benchmark tests (verify performance issues exist)
   - GitHub Issue-style output format

3. Real verification tests: verification-tests/OrderServiceVerificationTests.java
   - 7 complete JUnit tests validating business logic
   - Tests for transaction consistency, concurrency, data flow
   - Self-documenting: tests that fail = bugs found
   - Includes expected failures (H2, H5) proving bugs exist

4. Example output: 04-verified-business-logic-issues.md
   - GitHub Issue-style report
   - Issue github#1: Transaction consistency bug (with test proof)
   - Issue github#2: Concurrent overselling bug (with test proof)
   - Each issue includes: code evidence, test code, test output,
     impact analysis, reproduction steps, and fix suggestions
   - Only outputs verified findings (no speculation)

Why this matters:
- Traditional AI analysis: AI says "there might be a bug" → user must verify manually
- Verification-driven: AI says "bug confirmed by test" → user sees executable proof
- Reduces false positives, increases confidence
- Makes code review results actionable and trustworthy

Alignment with spec-kit philosophy:
- spec-kit: write code → run tests → verify → iterate
- code-review: analyze code → generate tests → verify → report
- Both use verification as the source of truth
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

Copilot code review Copilot Copilot left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@localden