I built an open-source Claude Code plugin that forces a spec-driven workflow (interview → spec → plan → tasks → code)

Like a lot of people, my Claude Code sessions used to go: throw a vague *"build feature X"*, hope for the best. Sometimes gold, often a Frankenstein I'd spend two hours untangling. The pattern I noticed: the model isn't dumb, my *request* was ambiguous — and it just filled the gaps by guessing. More prompt paragraphs didn't fix it. Structure did. So I packaged the method I'd been using by hand into a plugin called **Specsmith**. It enforces the flow *before* any code gets written: * **prompt-grill** — interrogates a vague request one question at a time until it can be written as an unambiguous spec, then generates `specs/<feature>/spec.md` * the method runs `spec.md → plan.md → tasks.md → code`, one commit per task * **dev-lifecycle** — handles the git side: branch off `develop`, Conventional Commits, green tests/CI, and a PR that pauses for your approval instead of auto-merging Install is two commands in Claude Code: /plugin marketplace add murilobauck/specsmith /plugin install specsmith@specsmith Fair warning: it's **v0.1, deliberately minimal**. I shipped the method first (two skills + a `specs/` scaffold) so I could validate it in real use before bloating it. MIT licensed. Repo's here if you want to see how it's built or follow where it goes: [https://github.com/murilobauck/specsmith](https://github.com/murilobauck/specsmith) If you try it, I'd genuinely like to know where it breaks or feels clunky — that's what'll shape v0.2.