# Specification: Comprehensive Issue Resolution for Slash Command Manager

## Introduction/Overview

This specification addresses all 15 identified issues in the Slash Command Manager extraction from the Spec Driven Workflow repository. The issues were discovered through comprehensive AI verification analysis and span critical production blockers, user-facing impacts, developer experience improvements, and repository cleanup. The goal is to restore full functionality, ensure production readiness, and maintain consistency with the original repository's standards while adapting appropriately for the standalone repository.

## Goals

1. **Restore Complete Production Readiness** - Fix all critical and high-priority issues that would prevent releases or break user functionality
2. **Maintain Repository Consistency** - Ensure alignment with original repository patterns where appropriate
3. **Implement Modern Python Packaging Standards** - Use hatchling build backend with proper pyproject.toml configuration
4. **Establish Robust CI/CD Pipeline** - Restore automated semantic-release workflow with proper authentication
5. **Ensure Developer Experience Parity** - Maintain consistent tooling and development workflows
6. **Create Clean, Standalone Repository** - Update all references

## User Stories

### As a **Release Engineer**

- I want automated semantic-release to work correctly so that releases are consistent and reliable
- I want the CI/CD pipeline to authenticate properly with GitHub so that releases can be published automatically
- I want the package to include all necessary assets so that users can install and use the tool without issues

### As a **Developer**

- I want consistent dependency management with uv.lock so that development environments are reproducible
- I want pre-commit hooks to work consistently so that code quality is maintained
- I want CI/CD to provide feedback and coverage reporting so that I can ensure code quality

### As an **End User**

- I want the MCP server entry point to work as documented so that I can use the tool as advertised
- I want all promised documentation to be available so that I can understand how to use the tool
- I want the package to install correctly with all dependencies so that I can use it immediately

### As a **Project Maintainer**

- I want the repository to be clean and focused so that it's easy to maintain and understand
- I want licensing to be consistent with requirements so that legal compliance is maintained
- I want all repository references to be correct so that the project can stand alone

## Demoable Units of Work

### Unit 1: Critical Infrastructure Restoration

**Purpose:** Restore automated release workflow and authentication
**Demo Criteria:**

- Semantic release configuration present and functional
- Release workflow matches original automated pattern (see `docs/reference/original-spec-driven-workflow-repo-before-extraction.xml`)
- GitHub Chainguard authentication configured and working
**Proof Artifacts:**
- `pyproject.toml` with `[tool.semantic_release]` section
- `.github/workflows/release.yml` matching original workflow_run trigger
- `.github/chainguard/main-semantic-release.sts.yaml` present

### Unit 2: Package Production Readiness

**Purpose:** Ensure package builds and installs correctly with all assets
**Demo Criteria:**

- Package builds successfully with hatchling
- Wheel includes `prompts/` directory and `server.py`
- MCP server entry point functional after installation
**Proof Artifacts:**
- Built wheel listing showing all required files
- Clean environment installation test commands
- Working `slash-man` command

### Unit 3: Development Workflow Consistency

**Purpose:** Restore consistent development experience with original tooling
**Demo Criteria:**

- uv.lock file present and consistent with pyproject.toml
- Pre-commit hooks working with commitlint
- CI workflow using uv with coverage reporting
**Proof Artifacts:**
- `uv.lock` file in repository root
- `.pre-commit-config.yaml` with proper hooks
- CI workflow showing uv usage and coverage upload

### Unit 4: Documentation and Compliance

**Purpose:** Ensure complete documentation and legal compliance
**Demo Criteria:**

- All required documentation files present and updated
- License matches original Apache-2.0
- Repository references updated for standalone operation
**Proof Artifacts:**
- Complete `docs/` directory with all files
- Apache-2.0 LICENSE file
- Updated README and configuration files

### Unit 5: Repository Cleanup and Finalization

**Purpose:** Clean repository with verified cross-references
**Demo Criteria:**

- All cross-references updated correctly
- Version management properly configured
**Proof Artifacts:**
- Updated configuration files
- Functional version integration

## Functional Requirements

### Critical Infrastructure Requirements

1. **Semantic Release Configuration**: The system SHALL include a complete `[tool.semantic_release]` section in `pyproject.toml` with proper version bumping, changelog generation, and build configuration
2. **Automated Release Workflow**: The system SHALL use the original `workflow_run` trigger pattern for semantic-release automation, not manual tag-based releases
3. **GitHub Authentication**: The system SHALL include the `.github/chainguard/main-semantic-release.sts.yaml` configuration file for octo-sts authentication
4. **Package Asset Inclusion**: The system SHALL ensure all critical assets (`prompts/` directory, `server.py`) are included in the built wheel distribution

### High Priority Requirements

1. **MCP Entry Point**: The system SHALL provide a functional `slash-man` console script as documented in the README
2. **License Compliance**: The system SHALL use Apache-2.0 license as required by the original specification
3. **Documentation Completeness**: The system SHALL include all required documentation files: `docs/mcp-prompt-support.md`, `docs/operations.md`, `docs/slash-command-generator.md`
4. **Dependency Management**: The system SHALL use uv dependency management with a consistent `uv.lock` file

### Medium Priority Requirements

1. **CI Workflow Consistency**: The system SHALL use uv instead of pip in CI workflows, include coverage reporting, and maintain Python version matrix testing
2. **Pre-commit Configuration**: The system SHALL include commitlint hook and maintain consistent tool versions with the original repository
3. **Build System Standards**: The system SHALL use hatchling build backend following modern Python packaging standards
4. **Version Integration**: The system SHALL properly integrate `__version__.py` with semantic-release to prevent version skew

### Low Priority Requirements

1. **Python Version Consistency**: The system SHALL maintain consistent `requires-python` configuration with the original repository
2. **Reference Updates**: The system SHALL update all repository references to work correctly as a standalone project

## Non-Goals (Out of Scope)

- Creating new features beyond what existed in the original repository
- Changing the core functionality or API of the Slash Command Manager
- Implementing alternative build systems or dependency managers not used in the original
- Modifying the MCP protocol or server implementation
- Creating additional documentation beyond what was present in the original repository

## Design Considerations

### Build System Decision

Based on Python packaging best practices and original repository analysis:

- **Hatchling** is selected as the build backend for better package data handling and modern standards compliance
- Package data inclusion will be configured to ensure `prompts/` and `server.py` are properly included
- Dynamic version handling will be configured to integrate with semantic-release

### Documentation Strategy

- Create new streamlined documentation specific to the standalone repository
- Heavily reference and adapt content from original repository documentation
- Update all repository-specific references and examples
- Ensure all documented functionality works as advertised

### Dependency Management

- Switch back to uv to match original repository exactly
- Generate and maintain consistent uv.lock file
- Ensure CI/CD workflows use uv for consistency

## Technical Considerations

### Semantic Release Integration

- Configure semantic-release to read version from `__version__.py` and update it during releases
- Set up proper changelog generation and commit message parsing
- Configure build artifacts and PyPI publishing automation

### Package Data Inclusion

- Use hatchling's `force-include` mechanism to ensure non-Python files are packaged
- Verify all required assets are present in built distributions
- Test installation in clean environments to validate functionality

### Authentication Configuration

- Restore GitHub Chainguard configuration for automated releases
- Ensure proper OIDC token handling for semantic-release
- Validate authentication flow with dry-run releases

### CI/CD Pipeline Updates

- Update workflows to use uv for dependency management
- Use the specific uv installation step from original workflow: `astral-sh/setup-uv@v6`
- Restore coverage reporting with Codecov integration
- Maintain Python version matrix testing from original repository

## Success Metrics

1. **Release Automation Success**: 100% of releases complete successfully without manual intervention
2. **Package Installation Success**: 100% success rate for clean environment installations
3. **Documentation Completeness**: All documented commands and features work as advertised
4. **CI/CD Reliability**: All workflow checks pass consistently with proper coverage reporting
5. **Developer Experience Consistency**: Development workflow matches original repository patterns

## Open Questions

1. **Version Strategy**: Should the version start at 1.0.0 or continue from the original repository's version?
   1. `1.0.0`

2. **Release Cadence**: Should we establish a specific release schedule or maintain the original automated approach?
   1. automated approach

3. **Coverage Thresholds**: What should the minimum coverage thresholds be for CI/CD?
   1. 80%

4. **Python Version Support**: Which Python versions should be actively supported in the standalone repository?
   1. Python 3.11 and 3.12

5. **Documentation Hosting**: Should documentation be hosted separately or included in the repository?
   1. included in the repo

## Dependencies

### External Dependencies

- GitHub Actions for CI/CD
- PyPI for package distribution
- Codecov for coverage reporting
- Semantic-release for version management

### Internal Dependencies

- Original repository snapshots for reference
- Existing issue analysis reports for validation
- Current development environment for testing

## Risk Assessment

### High Risk

- Package distribution failures due to missing assets or incorrect configuration
- Release automation failures due to authentication issues
- Breaking changes for existing users due to configuration drift

### Medium Risk

- Development workflow inconsistencies affecting contributor experience
- Documentation gaps causing user confusion
- CI/CD reliability issues affecting development velocity

### Low Risk

- Repository cleanliness issues affecting maintainability
- Minor version inconsistencies or reference updates
- Cosmetic or formatting differences

## Implementation Timeline

### Phase 1: Critical Infrastructure

- Semantic release configuration restoration
- Release workflow automation fix
- GitHub authentication configuration
- Package build system fixes

### Phase 2: Production Readiness

- MCP entry point implementation
- License compliance restoration
- Documentation copying and updating
- Dependency management fixes

### Phase 3: Developer Experience

- CI/CD workflow updates
- Pre-commit configuration fixes
- Version integration improvements
- Testing and validation

### Phase 4: Finalization

- Repository cleanup
- Reference updates
- Final testing and validation
- Documentation of changes

## Acceptance Criteria

Each unit of work must meet the following criteria:

1. **Functional Testing**: All functionality works as documented
2. **Integration Testing**: All components work together correctly
3. **Regression Testing**: No existing functionality is broken
4. **Documentation Validation**: All documentation is accurate and complete
5. **Code Quality**: All code meets quality standards and passes CI/CD checks
6. **Proof Artifacts**: All demoable units of work and proof artifacts are stored in `./docs/artifacts` and named according to the spec/task they belong to (see `./docs/artifacts` for examples)

## Verification Plan

1. **Automated Testing**: Comprehensive test suite covering all functionality
2. **Manual Verification**: Manual testing of critical user workflows
3. **Package Testing**: Installation and functionality testing in clean environments. Use a docker container to test the package installation and functionality.
4. **Release Testing**: End-to-end release workflow testing
5. **Documentation Review**: Technical review of all documentation for accuracy

## Conclusion

This specification provides a comprehensive approach to resolving all identified issues in the Slash Command Manager extraction. By following this structured approach, we can ensure production readiness, maintain consistency with the original repository, and create a clean, maintainable standalone project that serves its users effectively.
