Workflows

This guide covers common workflow patterns for OpenSpec and when to use each one. For basic setup, see Getting Started. For command reference, see Commands.

Philosophy: Actions, Not Phases

Traditional workflows force you through phases: planning, then implementation, then done. But real work doesn’t fit neatly into boxes.

OPSX takes a different approach:

Traditional (phase-locked):

  PLANNING ────────► IMPLEMENTING ────────► DONE
      │                    │
      │   "Can't go back"  │
      └────────────────────┘

OPSX (fluid actions):

  proposal ──► specs ──► design ──► tasks ──► implement

Key principles:

• Actions, not phases - Commands are things you can do, not stages you’re stuck in
• Dependencies are enablers - They show what’s possible, not what’s required next

Customization: OPSX workflows are driven by schemas that define artifact sequences. See Customization for details on creating custom schemas.

Workflow at a Glance

The default workflow stays fluid: exploration and verification are optional, and you can update planning artifacts whenever implementation reveals something new.

flowchart TD
    Idea["Idea or problem"] --> Explore["/opsx:explore<br/>(optional)"]
    Idea --> Propose["/opsx:propose"]
    Explore --> Propose
    Propose --> Review{"Planning artifacts<br/>ready?"}
    Review -->|"Refine"| Update["/opsx:update"]
    Update --> Review
    Review -->|"Implement"| Apply["/opsx:apply"]
    Apply -->|"Plan changed"| Update
    Apply --> Archive["/opsx:archive"]
    Apply --> Verify["/opsx:verify<br/>(optional, custom selection)"]
    Apply --> Sync["/opsx:sync<br/>(optional before archive)"]
    Verify --> Verified{"Ready to archive?"}
    Verified -->|"Fix implementation"| Apply
    Verified -->|"Revise plan"| Update
    Verified -->|"Ready"| Sync
    Verified -->|"Ready"| Archive
    Sync --> Archive

The AI assistant drives the workflow, while the CLI provides deterministic scaffolding, status, and artifact instructions:

sequenceDiagram
    actor Human
    participant Assistant as AI assistant
    participant CLI as OpenSpec CLI
    participant Files as Planning and implementation files

    Human->>Assistant: /opsx:propose "change"
    Assistant->>CLI: openspec new change
    CLI->>Files: Scaffold change metadata
    Assistant->>CLI: Request status and artifact instructions
    CLI-->>Assistant: Build order, paths, and templates
    Assistant->>Files: Write schema-defined planning artifacts
    Assistant-->>Human: Present artifacts for review

    Human->>Assistant: /opsx:apply
    Assistant->>CLI: Request apply instructions
    CLI-->>Assistant: Context files and task state
    Assistant->>Files: Implement tasks and update checkboxes
    Assistant-->>Human: Report implementation status

    Human->>Assistant: /opsx:archive
    Assistant->>CLI: Request archive inputs and artifact status
    CLI-->>Assistant: Planning paths and artifact completion
    Assistant->>Files: Read task state and compare delta specs
    opt Delta specs exist
        Assistant-->>Human: Offer to sync before archiving
        alt Sync accepted
            Human->>Assistant: Confirm sync
            Assistant->>Files: Merge delta specs into main specs
        else Sync skipped
            Human->>Assistant: Archive without syncing
        end
    end
    Assistant->>Files: Move the change into the archive
    Assistant-->>Human: Report archive location and sync result

    Note over Human,CLI: CLI alternative: openspec archive change-name --yes skips confirmation prompts. It still validates, then applies any delta specs and archives

Two Modes

Default Quick Path (core profile)

New installs default to core, which provides:

• /opsx:explore
• /opsx:propose
• /opsx:apply
• /opsx:update
• /opsx:sync
• /opsx:archive

Typical flow:

/opsx:explore ──► /opsx:propose ──► /opsx:apply ──► /opsx:sync ──► /opsx:archive
  (optional)

Start by exploring (the habit worth forming)

/opsx:explore is part of the default profile, not an advanced add-on. It’s the move to make whenever you have a problem but not yet a plan, which, with an AI assistant, is most of the time.

You: /opsx:explore

AI:  What would you like to explore?

You: Our search results feel stale. I'm not sure if it's caching,
     indexing, or the query itself.

AI:  Let me look... [reads the search service and cache layer]
     It's the index: it only rebuilds nightly, so edits don't show
     up until the next day. Two options: rebuild on write (simple,
     more load) or a short-TTL cache invalidation (more moving parts,
     less load). Given your write volume is low, rebuild-on-write is
     the cleaner fix. Want to scope it?

You: Yes.

You: /opsx:propose rebuild-search-index-on-write

Explore never writes code, and writes nothing else unless you ask, or say yes when it offers. It’s a free, no-stakes conversation that turns a vague worry into a precise change, so the proposal that follows is sharp. Already know exactly what you want? Skip it and go straight to /opsx:propose. Full guide: Explore First.

Expanded/Full Workflow (custom selection)

If you want explicit scaffold-and-build commands (/opsx:new, /opsx:continue, /opsx:ff, /opsx:verify, /opsx:bulk-archive, /opsx:onboard), enable them with:

openspec config profile
openspec update

Workflow Patterns (Expanded Mode)

Quick Feature

When you know what you want to build and just need to execute:

/opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──► /opsx:apply ──► /opsx:verify ──► /opsx:archive

Example conversation:

You: /opsx:new add-logout-button

AI:  Created openspec/changes/add-logout-button/
     Ready to create: proposal

You: /opsx:ff

AI:  Creating all planning artifacts...
     ✓ proposal.md
     ✓ specs/
     ✓ design.md
     ✓ tasks.md
     Ready for implementation!

You: /opsx:apply

AI:  Working through tasks...
     ✓ Added logout button to header
     ✓ Implemented session clearing
     ✓ Added confirmation dialog
     All tasks complete!

You: /opsx:archive

AI:  ✓ Merged specs
     ✓ Archived change

Best for: Small to medium features, bug fixes, straightforward changes.

Exploratory

When requirements are unclear or you need to investigate first:

/opsx:explore ──► /opsx:new ──► /opsx:continue ──► ... ──► /opsx:apply

Example conversation:

You: /opsx:explore

AI:  What would you like to explore?

You: I want to improve page load performance but I'm not sure
     where the bottlenecks are.

AI:  Let me help investigate...
     [Analyzes bundle sizes, identifies slow queries, reviews
     component render patterns]

     I found three main bottlenecks:
     1. Large unoptimized images
     2. Synchronous data fetching in ProductList
     3. Re-renders from context changes

     Which would you like to address first?

You: Let's tackle the data fetching issue.

You: /opsx:new optimize-product-list-fetching

AI:  Created change. Ready to create: proposal

You: /opsx:continue

AI:  Creating proposal based on our exploration...
     [Writes proposal incorporating investigation insights]

     Ready to create: specs, design
     Which would you like next?

You: /opsx:continue

AI:  Creating specs...

Best for: Performance optimization, debugging, architectural decisions, unclear requirements.

Parallel Changes

Work on multiple changes at once:

Change A: /opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──► /opsx:apply (in progress)
                                         │
                                    context switch
                                         │
Change B: /opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──────► /opsx:apply

Example conversation:

You: I'm working on add-dark-mode but got pulled into a bug fix

You: /opsx:new fix-login-redirect

AI:  Created openspec/changes/fix-login-redirect/

You: /opsx:ff

AI:  ✓ Created planning artifacts

You: /opsx:apply

AI:  Working on fix-login-redirect...
     [Implements the fix]
     All tasks complete!

You: /opsx:archive

AI:  ✓ Archived fix-login-redirect

You: Let's get back to dark mode

You: /opsx:apply add-dark-mode

AI:  Resuming add-dark-mode...
     Picking up at task 2.3: Update Header...

Best for: Parallel work streams, urgent interrupts, team collaboration.

When you have multiple completed changes, use /opsx:bulk-archive:

You: /opsx:bulk-archive

AI:  Found 3 completed changes:
     - add-dark-mode (all tasks done)
     - fix-login-redirect (all tasks done)
     - update-footer (all tasks done)

     Checking for spec conflicts...
     ⚠ add-dark-mode and update-footer both touch specs/ui/

     Inspecting codebase to resolve...
     Both changes are implemented. Will apply in chronological order.

     Archive all 3 changes?

You: Yes

AI:  ✓ Archived add-dark-mode
     ✓ Archived fix-login-redirect
     ✓ Archived update-footer
     Specs merged in order: add-dark-mode → update-footer

Bulk archive detects when multiple changes touch the same specs and resolves conflicts by checking what’s actually implemented.

Completing a Change

The recommended completion flow:

/opsx:apply ──► /opsx:verify ──► /opsx:archive
                    │                 │
              validates          prompts to sync
              implementation     if needed

Verify: Check Your Work

/opsx:verify validates implementation against your artifacts across three dimensions:

You: /opsx:verify

AI:  Verifying add-auth...

     COMPLETENESS
     ✓ All 12 tasks in tasks.md are checked
     ✓ All requirements in specs have corresponding code
     ⚠ Scenario "Session timeout after inactivity" not tested

     CORRECTNESS
     ✓ Implementation matches spec intent
     ✓ Edge cases from scenarios are handled
     ✓ Error states match spec definitions

     COHERENCE
     ✓ Design decisions reflected in code structure
     ✓ Naming conventions consistent with design.md
     ⚠ Design mentions "event-driven" but implementation uses polling

     SUMMARY
     ─────────────────────────────
     Critical issues: 0
     Warnings: 2
     Ready to archive: Yes (with warnings)

     Recommendations:
     1. Add test for session timeout scenario
     2. Consider refactoring to event-driven as designed, or update design.md

What verify checks:

Dimension	What it validates
Completeness	All tasks done, all requirements implemented, scenarios covered
Correctness	Implementation matches spec intent, edge cases handled
Coherence	Design decisions reflected in code, patterns consistent

Verify won’t block archive, but it surfaces issues you might want to address first.

Archive: Finalize the Change

/opsx:archive completes the change and moves it to the archive:

You: /opsx:archive

AI:  Archiving add-auth...

     Artifact status:
     ✓ proposal.md exists
     ✓ specs/ exists
     ✓ design.md exists
     ✓ tasks.md exists (12/12 tasks complete)

     Delta specs: Not yet synced to main
     → Would you like to sync now?

You: Yes

AI:  ✓ Synced specs to openspec/specs/auth/spec.md
     ✓ Moved to openspec/changes/archive/2025-01-24-add-auth/

     Change archived successfully.

Archive will prompt if specs aren’t synced. It won’t block on incomplete tasks, but it will warn you.

When to Use What

/opsx:ff vs /opsx:continue

Situation	Use
Clear requirements, ready to build	/opsx:ff
Exploring, want to review each step	/opsx:continue
Want to iterate on proposal before specs	/opsx:continue
Time pressure, need to move fast	/opsx:ff
Complex change, want control	/opsx:continue

Rule of thumb: If you can describe the full scope upfront, use /opsx:ff. If you’re figuring it out as you go, use /opsx:continue.

When to Update vs Start Fresh

A common question: when is updating an existing change okay, and when should you start a new one?

Update the existing change when:

• Same intent, refined execution
• Scope narrows (MVP first, rest later)
• Learning-driven corrections (codebase isn’t what you expected)
• Design tweaks based on implementation discoveries

Start a new change when:

• Intent fundamentally changed
• Scope exploded to different work entirely
• Original change can be marked “done” standalone
• Patches would confuse more than clarify

                     ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
                     │     Is this the same work?          │
                     └──────────────┬──────────────────────┘
                                    │
                 ┌──────────────────┼──────────────────┐
                 │                  │                  │
                 ▼                  ▼                  ▼
          Same intent?      >50% overlap?      Can original
          Same problem?     Same scope?        be "done" without
                 │                  │          these changes?
                 │                  │                  │
       ┌────────┴────────┐  ┌──────┴──────┐   ┌───────┴───────┐
       │                 │  │             │   │               │
      YES               NO YES           NO  NO              YES
       │                 │  │             │   │               │
       ▼                 ▼  ▼             ▼   ▼               ▼
    UPDATE            NEW  UPDATE       NEW  UPDATE          NEW

Example: “Add dark mode”

• “Need to also support custom themes” → New change (scope exploded)
• “System preference detection is harder than expected” → Update (same intent)
• “Let’s ship toggle first, add preferences later” → Update then archive, then new change

Best Practices

Keep Changes Focused

One logical unit of work per change. If you’re doing “add feature X and also refactor Y”, consider two separate changes.

Why it matters:

• Easier to review and understand
• Cleaner archive history
• Can ship independently
• Simpler rollback if needed

Use /opsx:explore for Unclear Requirements

Before committing to a change, explore the problem space:

You: /opsx:explore

AI:  What would you like to explore?

You: How should we handle rate limiting for our API?

AI:  Let me investigate your current setup and options...
     [Researches codebase, considers patterns]

     I see three approaches we could take:
     1. Middleware-based (simple, per-endpoint)
     2. Redis-backed (scalable, shared state)
     3. Token bucket per user (fair, complex)

     Your current stack suggests #1 or #2. What's your scale?

Exploration clarifies thinking before any code gets written.

Verify Before Archiving

Use /opsx:verify to check implementation matches artifacts:

You: /opsx:verify

AI:  Verifying add-dark-mode...

     ✓ All tasks in tasks.md are checked
     ✓ Requirements in specs have corresponding code
     ✓ Design decisions are reflected in implementation

     Ready to archive!

Catches mismatches before you close out the change.

Name Changes Clearly

Good names make openspec list useful:

Good:                          Avoid:
add-dark-mode                  feature-1
fix-login-redirect             update
optimize-product-query         changes
implement-2fa                  wip

Command Quick Reference

For full command details and options, see Commands.

Command	Purpose	When to Use
/opsx:propose	Create change + planning artifacts	Fast default path (core profile)
/opsx:explore	Think through ideas with the AI	Start here when unsure: unclear requirements, investigation, comparing options
/opsx:new	Start a change scaffold	Expanded mode, explicit artifact control
/opsx:continue	Create next artifact	Expanded mode, step-by-step artifact creation
/opsx:ff	Create all planning artifacts	Expanded mode, clear scope
/opsx:apply	Implement tasks	Ready to write code
/opsx:verify	Validate implementation	Expanded mode, before archiving
/opsx:sync	Merge delta specs	Expanded mode, optional
/opsx:archive	Complete the change	All work finished
/opsx:bulk-archive	Archive multiple changes	Expanded mode, parallel work

Next Steps

• Writing Good Specs - What a strong requirement and scenario look like, and how to right-size a change
• Reviewing a Change - The two-minute pass on a drafted plan before any code
• OpenSpec on a Team - How changes fit branches and pull requests
• Commands - Full command reference with options
• Concepts - Deep dive into specs, artifacts, and schemas
• Customization - Create custom workflows