[Feature]: Add /speckit.guide for dry-run implementation planning

[HarounBR]

Problem Statement

While /speckit.clarify helps reduce ambiguity in the feature specification before planning, there is currently no equivalent step for validating implementation scope after task generation and before execution.

This leaves a gap where /speckit.implement may exceed the intended scope by acting on future tasks or making architectural assumptions that were not explicitly reviewed beforehand.

This creates risks such as:

Scope creep across planned phases
Unintended architecture changes
Hallucinated dependencies or missing interfaces
Higher review and rollback costs

Proposed Solution

Introduce a new optional command: /speckit.guide.

This command would run after /speckit.tasks and before /speckit.implement, generating a guide.md file that acts as a dry-run implementation plan.

The generated guide would describe:

• Which files are expected to be modified
• Which interfaces or services may be affected
• Required dependencies or prerequisites
• Execution order of tasks
• Scope boundaries for the current phase
• Potential risks or stop conditions

This would provide developers with a reviewable implementation artifact before execution, reducing the chance of scope drift and improving architecture control.

Proposed workflow:

/speckit.specify
→ /speckit.clarify
→ /speckit.plan
→ /speckit.tasks
→ /speckit.guide
→ Human review
→ /speckit.implement

This would not replace /speckit.clarify, but complement it by extending the same validation principle into the implementation phase.

Alternatives Considered

Yes, I considered the following alternatives:

1. Using /speckit.clarify

   • This helps resolve ambiguity in the feature specification before planning.
   • However, it does not address implementation scope validation after task generation.

2. Improving /speckit.implement directly

   • Scope validation logic could be embedded into /speckit.implement.
   • However, this would mix planning/review concerns with execution, reducing workflow transparency.

3. Manual guide.md creation

   • This is the current workaround I use.
   • It provides better control, but it is manual, inconsistent, and not integrated into the Spec Kit workflow.

I believe a dedicated /speckit.guide command is the cleanest solution because it introduces a reusable, explicit review layer between task generation and implementation.

Component

Agent integrations (command files, workflows)

AI Agent (if applicable)

None

Use Cases

No response

Acceptance Criteria

No response

Additional Context

No response