Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
1–10 of 316 posts
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#2Author here, if you don't want to read all that, I'll post one excerpt that I think sums it up nicely:
> My point is, the spec must live somewhere, even if you don’t write it down. The spec is what you want the software to be. It often exists only in your head or in conversations. You and your team and your business will always care what the spec says, and that’s never going to change. So you’re better off writing it down now! And I think that a plain old list of acceptance criteria is a good place to start. (That’s really all that `feature.yaml` is.)
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#3the token usage isn’t sustainable. formal english is a barrier but requirement for specification. brevity is the language of money and that’s the premise of management using ai.
fyi language alone can’t define/describe requirements which is why UML existed.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#4the token usage isn’t sustainable. formal english is a barrier but requirement for specification. brevity is the language of money and that’s the premise of management using ai. fyi language alone can’t define/describe requirements which is why UML existed.
I think uml exists to help humans understand and communicate specifications, not because language alone is insufficient.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#5the token usage isn’t sustainable. formal english is a barrier but requirement for specification. brevity is the language of money and that’s the premise of management using ai. fyi language alone can’t define/describe requirements which is why UML existed.
Natural language is a fully general system and can define and describe everything.
You could deterministically process any UML diagram into a prose equivalent.
And in fact you couldn't do the other way around (any prose -> UML) because UML is less powerful than natural language and actually can't express everything that natural language can.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#6Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#7I'm still confused as to why folks don't just write executable specs.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#8I use OpenSpec for my spec management, and I scrolled down to the comparison. The gripe seems to be with a semantic difference. Specs describing a current system is the basis for AS/IS Gap Analysis.
Also, I mainly pursue these tools so that I can have AI accelerate this process and broker an agreement after negotiating specs with the agent.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#9I use OpenSpec for my spec management, and I scrolled down to the comparison. The gripe seems to be with a semantic difference. Specs describing a current system is the basis for AS/IS Gap Analysis. Also, I mainly pursue these tools so that I can have AI accelerate this process and broker an agreement after negotiating specs with the agent.
I can see one benefit to a structured yaml for specs like the OP is doing: it gives you more control over what you include in the context window. But coming up with a good schema that doesn't handicap you or add cognitive burden, compared to the freeform flexibility of md/txt, is a challenge.
Re: Specsmaxxing – On overcoming AI psychosis, and why I write specs in YAML
#10Wow - I love programming in YAML! You know what would make this really fun? Sprinkle in some Jinja. Then we'll be cooking with gas.