[codex] add worktree-first specify command#8
Merged
Conversation
…specify # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Adds an explicit worktree-first specify command for the workflow discussed in issue #4: create or reuse the feature worktree before writing any spec artifacts, then continue the normal Spec Kit flow from that worktree root.
Why
The existing after_specify hook creates a worktree only after /speckit.specify has already written artifacts in the primary checkout. A raw before_specify hook can create a worktree, but it does not guarantee Spec Kit will switch the active project root for the rest of the command. This PR documents and exposes the predictable command-level workflow instead.
Changes
Existing PR check
Checked #7 first: tests are green and GitHub reports it as mergeable. It is still marked BLOCKED by GitHub, which appears to be repository policy/review state rather than a code conflict.
Validation
Closes #4