ladder-create

Generate a new phase spec in canonical Ladder format.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "ladder-create" with this command: npx skills add sadiksaifi/agents/sadiksaifi-agents-ladder-create

Ladder Create

Generate a new phase spec in canonical Ladder format.

When to Use

  • User says "create phase," "new phase," "add phase," "ladder create," or "/ladder-create"

  • User provides a feature description to turn into a phase spec

  • Direct mode: /ladder-create "Add SFTP support"

  • Q&A mode: /ladder-create (no argument — will ask questions)

When NOT to Use

  • .ladder/OVERVIEW.md doesn't exist → "Run /ladder-init first"

  • Spec already exists and needs restructuring → use /ladder-refine

  • Spec exists and is ready to implement → use /ladder-execute

Quick Reference

Field Value

Input Feature description (direct) or Q&A answers

Output .ladder/specs/L-<N>-<slug>.md

Commits chore(ladder): add L-<N> spec — <slug>

Prerequisites .ladder/OVERVIEW.md must exist

Iron Laws

  • Specs are immutable after creation — only progress.md is a living document.

  • Evidence before completion — never claim a step is done without proof.

  • progress.md is the single source of truth for execution state.

  • User approval before persistent actions — always confirm before writing files or committing.

Hard Gates

Workflow

Phase A: Context Loading

  1. Load Context
  • Read .ladder/OVERVIEW.md for product context and Phase Registry.

  • Read references/spec-format.md for the canonical format.

  1. Gather Input

Direct mode (argument provided): Parse the description for objective and scope.

Q&A mode (no argument): Ask the user:

  • Objective — what does this phase deliver?

  • Prerequisites — what must exist before this phase?

  • Scope — what's included?

  • Exclusions — what's explicitly out?

  • References — any .ladder/refs/ docs relevant?

Phase B: Generation

  1. Determine Phase Number
  • Standard: Next integer after the highest phase in the Phase Registry.

  • Fractional insertion (e.g., L-01.1): When the user requests a phase between existing phases.

  • Update surrounding phases' Entry/Exit Criteria in-place to reference the new phase.

  • Commit surrounding changes: chore(ladder): update entry/exit criteria for L-<N.1> insertion

  • Update OVERVIEW.md Phase Registry.

  1. Generate Spec

Generate all 11 required sections (+ section 12 if references exist) per references/spec-format.md :

  • Aim for 6–12 steps per phase

  • Assign S<N> IDs to each step

  • Set Complexity for each step

  • Write Acceptance criteria for every step

  • Reference predecessor phase in Entry Criteria

  • Include "UAT checklist items pass" in Exit Criteria

Phase C: Review

  1. User Review

Present the full spec to the user for review before writing to disk. Incorporate any requested changes. Repeat until approved.

Phase D: Persist

  1. Write Spec

Write to .ladder/specs/L-<N>-<slug>.md where <slug> is a kebab-case summary.

  1. Update OVERVIEW.md

Add the new phase to the Phase Registry table.

  1. Commit

chore(ladder): add L-<N> spec — <slug>

  1. Summary

Print the file path and suggest:

"Run /ladder-execute <path> to begin implementation."

Common Mistakes

Mistake Why It Fails Fix

Writing spec before user review User can't influence final output Present full spec, wait for approval (Hard Gate)

Fewer than 6 steps Phase is too coarse-grained for progress tracking Split large steps until each is implementable in one commit

Steps without acceptance criteria /ladder-execute will reject the spec Every step needs ≥1 testable criterion

Adding scope the user didn't request Scope creep undermines trust Only spec what was asked for

Skipping Q&A in interactive mode Spec lacks user context Always ask all 5 questions

Vague acceptance criteria "Works correctly" is untestable Use observable outcomes: "returns 200," "renders in <2s"

Red Flags — STOP

Thought Reality

"I'll write the spec and the user can edit it later" User review is a HARD GATE — present before writing

"This step is simple, it doesn't need acceptance criteria" Every step needs criteria — no exceptions

"I'll add some extra features while I'm at it" Only spec what was requested — no scope creep

"5 steps is enough" Aim for 6–12. Fewer means steps are too coarse

"I can figure out the scope without asking" Q&A exists for a reason — gather user context

Integration

Direction Skill Signal

Requires /ladder-init

.ladder/OVERVIEW.md exists

Enables /ladder-execute

Canonical spec in .ladder/specs/

Related /ladder-refine

If created spec needs restructuring

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Automation

gh-pr-create

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

tdd

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

prd-to-issues

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

ladder-init

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review