Thread

1. mafro · 1789642301 · focus · HN ↗

   I've used OpenSpec extensively on two large pieces of software which were worked solo over 6-9 months.

   Recently, I've completely ditched the specification part. I found they just weren't useful over the longer term. I used an LLM to assess in both directions whether the code matched the specs and whether the specs matched the code. On both software projects this came out with huge divergence from spec to code.

   Basically the old theory is true - the code IS the specification.

   What I did find very useful and have retained is the process flow. Create a proposal, review the proposal, implement, review the code. Also useful was building and maintaining ADRs and invariant logs for where a unit test cannot be made to verify behaviour. The process and the ADRs, unit test, invariant log all help the software stay coherent as the LLM churns on it over many unconnected contexts.

   1. cherry_tree · 1789669934 · focus · HN ↗

      Are you maintaining a single long lived spec for an entire repo/project and trying to have AI implement against that, or are you creating a spec for each feature addition or piece of work you want to AI to do? What you say I hear commonly from folks who are trying to maintain a single spec for a repo and finding it falls over as that spec gets complex and what’s being asked of the AI is muddied by you asking it to figure out the diff between what was already in the spec/previously implemented and what it’s being asked to do.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.