Subsystem Design Spec

A Subsystem Design Spec is the bridge between a high-level System Spec and OpenSpec's change workflow. It takes one subsystem from the system-level architecture and produces a comprehensive, implementation-ready specification with opinionated progressive phases.

Core principle: Define contracts and phases before any code exists. Each phase is independently testable, contract-bounded, and follows FP progression: types -> pure functions -> effects -> composition.

When to Use

A System Spec (high-level) exists with subsystems identified
You're ready to deep-dive on one subsystem before starting OpenSpec
You're creating the second+ subsystem spec and need convention consistency

Do NOT use for:

High-level system specs (use
```
superpowers:brainstorming
```
)
OpenSpec artifacts (proposal, design, tasks) — OpenSpec handles those
Specs that don't decompose into implementation phases

Process

Step 1: Load Conventions

Before writing anything, check for a project conventions file:

Search: docs/conventions.md, docs/spec-conventions.md

If conventions file exists: Load it. It contains established naming patterns, section structure, phase coding, and cross-subsystem contracts. Skip scanning individual specs — the conventions file is the single source of truth.

If no conventions file exists: Scan for prior subsystem specs:

Search: docs/**/*-spec*.md, docs/**/*-design*.md, docs/prd/**/*.md

If prior specs are found, extract conventions from them:

Section structure and depth — which sections, how detailed
Phase coding scheme — e.g., S1.1, S1.2 (carry forward S2.1, S2.2, etc.)
Naming patterns — design decisions (D1, D2...), user stories (US-{n}), acceptance criteria (AC-{n}.{y})
Cross-subsystem contracts — types, traits, or schemas already defined
Phase granularity — typical size estimates, task counts per phase

Present extracted conventions to the user before proceeding. Follow-on subsystem specs MUST maintain consistency with established conventions.

Step 2: Reference the System Spec

Load the parent System Spec section for this subsystem. Extract:

Subsystem purpose and boundaries
Input/output contracts with adjacent subsystems
Technology choices already decided at system level
Architecture principles (FP-first, immutability, etc.)

Step 3: Guide Document Creation

Create the subsystem design spec iteratively with the user. The document follows this structure (all sections required unless marked optional):

markdown

# S{n} {Subsystem Name} — Subsystem Design Spec

**Version:** x.y
**Status:** Draft
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Parent Spec:** [System Spec Name](path) (Section N, S{n})

---

## 1. Overview
### 1.1 Goals
### 1.2 Non-Goals

## 2. Architecture
### 2.1 Component Diagram (mermaid)
### 2.2 Key Design Decisions
    D1 — {Title}: rationale, tradeoffs
    D2 — {Title}: rationale, tradeoffs
    ...

## 3. User Stories
    US-1: {Story} with AC-1.1, AC-1.2, ...
    US-2: {Story} with AC-2.1, AC-2.2, ...
    ...

## 4. Detailed Design
    Per-component subsections with behavior, schemas, flows

## 5. Output Contract
    Data schemas, file structures, API contracts, column definitions,
    constraints — the interface downstream consumers depend on

## 6. Error Handling
    Exit codes, error categories, handling strategy per category

## 7. Testing Strategy
    ### 7.1 Unit Tests — what's covered, key scenarios
    ### 7.2 Integration Tests — with mocks, full flows
    ### 7.3 End-to-End Tests — opt-in, real external services

## 8. Performance Considerations

## 9. Future Considerations (out of scope for v1)

## 10. Dependencies
    ### 10.1 Packages/Crates
    ### 10.2 External Dependencies

## 11. Implementation Phases
    (See Phase Design Discipline below)

## 12. Acceptance Summary
    Numbered list of acceptance conditions

## Appendices (optional)
    Reference material, API response structures, etc.

Step 4: Apply Phase Design Discipline (Section 11)

This is the core opinionated section. Each phase must satisfy:

Independently testable — verifiable with mocks, no prior phase fully needed
Contract-bounded — exposes explicit types/traits/interfaces for downstream
Reviewable — a human can review the phase's OpenSpec output in <=30 minutes
Sized for OpenSpec — each phase becomes one OpenSpec change with <=8 tasks

Phase Template

markdown

### S{n}.{m}: {Phase Name}

**Scope:** What this phase delivers — concrete, verifiable
**Size estimate:** ~N files, ~N lines
**Contracts consumed:** Prior phase contracts (or "None")
**Contracts exposed:**
- Type/trait/interface names and signatures
**Gate:** Exact command to verify (e.g., `cargo build && cargo test`)
**Verification:** How a human reviewer manually verifies this phase works
  beyond the gate command — what to inspect, what to run, what output to expect.
  This becomes the reviewer's checklist during the human review checkpoint.
**Review tier:** gate-only | spot-check | full-review (see Review Tiers below)
**Dependencies:** Which prior phases, and what specifically (contracts only)

Phase Ordering — FP Progression

Phase 1 — always: Domain types, core traits/interfaces, project scaffolding. No business logic. Only the type-level skeleton.
Early phases (parallel-safe): Config parsing, state management, I/O utilities, rate limiting — independent modules consuming Phase 1 types.
Middle phases: Pure-core logic, then effects/IO at boundaries. Concrete trait implementations (e.g., data source providers).
Final phase: Integration wiring, CLI/main entry point, dependency assembly. The imperative shell.

Phase Design Checklist

Before finalizing phases:

Phase 1 defines ALL shared types and trait contracts
Phases 2..N-1 are maximally independent (parallelizable where possible)
Each phase has <=8 OpenSpec tasks (split if more)
Contract types are defined BEFORE implementation that uses them
Phase N can be tested with mocks even if Phase N-1 isn't implemented
No phase has hidden coupling to another phase's internals
Each phase has a concrete gate command
Each phase has a verification section describing how to manually test it
Each phase has a review tier assigned (gate-only, spot-check, full-review)
Phase dependency graph is included showing parallelization opportunities

Phase Dependency Graph

Include a text diagram showing phase dependencies:

S{n}.1 (Types & Contracts)
 |-- S{n}.2 (Component A)
 |-- S{n}.3 (Component B)      <- parallel with S{n}.2
 |-- S{n}.4 (Component C)      <- parallel with S{n}.2, S{n}.3
 |    |
 |    |-- S{n}.5 (Provider X)  <- depends on S{n}.4
 |
 |-- S{n}.6 (Orchestration)    <- depends on S{n}.2-S{n}.4 contracts
      |
      --- S{n}.7 (CLI Wiring)  <- depends on all

Parallelizable: S{n}.2, S{n}.3, S{n}.4 can proceed in parallel after S{n}.1.

Review Tiers

Each phase is assigned a review tier that determines how much human attention it needs at the checkpoint. This prevents the human from becoming the bottleneck in a large system with many phases.

Tier	When to Use	What Happens at Checkpoint
gate-only	Scaffolding, boilerplate, type definitions, infrastructure. Low risk, mechanical output.	Gate command passes → auto-proceed. Human is notified but doesn't need to act.
spot-check	Well-constrained phases with clear contracts. Moderate risk.	Human glances at the diff, verifies gate passed, proceeds unless something looks off.
full-review	Orchestration, business logic, external integrations, security-sensitive code. High risk.	Human reads the diff, runs verification guide, thinks about edge cases before proceeding.

Guidelines for assigning tiers:

Phase 1 (types & scaffolding): gate-only — if it compiles and tests pass, the types are correct
Pure utility phases (rate limiting, CSV writer): spot-check — contracts constrain the implementation, quick glance suffices
External integration phases (API clients, data sources): full-review — HTTP behavior, error handling, and edge cases need human judgment
Orchestration / composition phases: full-review — this is where subtle bugs hide
CLI / wiring phases: spot-check — mechanical assembly of already-reviewed components

Step 5: Produce Conventions File

After the first subsystem spec is complete and reviewed, produce (or update) a lightweight conventions file at

docs/conventions.md

. This file is the single source of truth for subsequent subsystems — they read this instead of scanning all prior specs.

markdown

# Project Conventions

## Naming
- Subsystem codes: S1 (Downloader), S2 (DB Sync), S3 (Stream Ingest), ...
- Phase codes: S{n}.{m} (e.g., S1.1, S1.2)
- Design decisions: D{n} — {Title} with rationale
- User stories: US-{n} with acceptance criteria AC-{n}.{y}

## Document Structure
<list the section structure established in the first subsystem spec>

## Phase Design
- Ordering: types -> pure functions -> effects -> composition
- Max tasks per phase: 8
- Each phase exposes contracts consumed/exposed
- Phase dependency graph required

## Established Contracts
<list cross-subsystem contracts defined so far>
- S1 output: CSV files at data/{market}/{ticker}/{resolution}.csv (Section 5)
- S1 types in sati-contracts: OhlcvBar, TickerInfo, Resolution, CsvRecord

Update this file after each subsystem spec is finalized. Add new cross-subsystem contracts and any convention refinements. Keep it under 50 lines.

Step 6: Review and Iterate

Present the draft spec to the user. Iterate on:

Phase boundaries — are they clean? Any hidden coupling?
Contract completeness — are all inter-phase interfaces explicit?
Design decisions — are tradeoffs documented?
Size estimates — realistic for the scope?

Naming Conventions

Element	Format	Example
Subsystem code	S{n}	S1, S2, S3
Phase code	S{n}.{m}	S1.1, S1.2, S2.3
Design decision	D{n}	D1, D2, D3
User story	US-{n}	US-1, US-2
Acceptance criterion	AC-{story}.{criterion}	AC-1.1, AC-1.2, AC-3.4
Spec file	{project}-s{n}-{name}-v{version}.md	sati-s1-downloader-v1.md

Anti-Rationalization Table

Thought	Reality
"The system spec is detailed enough"	System specs define boundaries. Design specs define internals. Different levels.
"I'll figure out phases during implementation"	Phases defined after coding starts are retrofitted, not designed. Contracts leak.
"These two phases are too small, I'll combine them"	Small phases are a feature. They enable focused review and parallel work.
"The contract is obvious, no need to write it"	Explicit contracts enable mock testing and subsystem isolation. Write it.
"I'll add the dependency graph later"	The graph exposes parallelization. Without it, phases are assumed sequential.
"This subsystem is simple, skip the full structure"	Simple subsystems still need contracts, phases, and testing strategy.
"I'll just follow the same structure as last time"	Read the existing specs and extract conventions explicitly. Memory drifts.

subsystem-design-spec

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Subsystem Design Spec

When to Use

Process

Step 1: Load Conventions

Step 2: Reference the System Spec

Step 3: Guide Document Creation

Step 4: Apply Phase Design Discipline (Section 11)

Phase Template

Phase Ordering — FP Progression

Phase Design Checklist

Phase Dependency Graph

Review Tiers

Step 5: Produce Conventions File

Step 6: Review and Iterate

Naming Conventions

Anti-Rationalization Table