Seems like you are all just redefining what spec and waterfall means.

A spec was from a customer where it would detail every feature. They would be huge, but usually lack enough detail or be ambiguous. They would be signed off by the customer and then you'd deliver to the spec.

It would contain months, if not years, worth of work. Then after all this work the end product would not meet the actual customer needs.

A day's work is not a spec. It's a ticket's worth of work, which is agile.

Agile is an iterative process where you deliver small chunks of work and the customer course corrects as regular intervals. Commonly 3/4 week sprints, made up of many tickets that take hours or days, per course correct.

Generally each sprint had a spec, and each ticket had a spec. But it sounds like until now you've just been winging it, with vague definitions per feature. It's very common, especially where the PO or PM are bad at their job. Or the developer is informally acting as PO.

Now you're making specs per ticket, you're just now doing what many development teams already do. You're just bizarrely calling it a new process.

It's like watching someone point at a bicycle and insist it's a rocketship.

▲

hgomersall 6 hours ago | parent [-]

A customer generally provides requirements (the system should do...) which are translated into a spec (the module/function/method should do...). The set of specs map to requirements. Requirements may be derived from or represented by user stories and specs may or may not by developed in an agile way or written down ahead of time. Whether you have or derive requirements and specs is entirely orthogonal to development methodology. People need to get away from the idea that having specs is any more than a formal description of what the code should do.

The approach we take is the specs are developed from the tests and tests exercise the spec point in its entirety. That is, a test and a spec are semantically synonymous within the code base. Any interesting thing we're playing with is using the specs alongside the signatures to have an LLM determine when the spec is incomplete.

▲

throwaway173738 an hour ago | parent [-]

A spec consists of three different kinds of requirements: functional requirements, non-functional requirements, and constraints. It’s supposed to fully describe how the product responds to the context and the desires of stakeholders.

The problem I see a lot with Agile is that people over-focus on functional requirements in the form of user stories. Which in your case would be statements like “X should do…”

	▲	hgomersall 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't necessarily disagree, but can you give an example of a non functional requirement that influences the design?