How much of the specs themselves came from the LLM? The development schedule https://github.com/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/blob/main... has very AI-looking estimates for exampl and I can see a commit in the architecture.md file which is exclusively changing em-dashes to normal dashes (https://github.com/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/commit/74...) which suggests you wanted to make it seem less LLM-generated?

I ask, not to condemn, but to find out what your process was for developing the requirements. Clearly it was done with LLM help but what was the refinement process?

▲

JanSchu 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The spec document was also written by Claude (over many iteration) and lots of manual additions. It took me tho 4 full days to get the specs to the level I was happy with.

One main thing I did was to use the deep research feature of Claude to get a good understanding of what other tools are offering (features, integrations etc.)

Then each feature in the specs document got refined with manual suggestions and screenshots of other tools that I took.

	▲	drabbiticus 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for sharing! > Before writing any code, I spent time on detailed specs, an architecture doc, and a style guide. All public: https://github.com/brightbeanxyz/brightbean-studio/tree/main... > It took me tho 4 full days to get the specs to the level I was happy with. When I click on history there I see only a single commit for these docs. Would you be willing to share some or all of the conversation you had with the LLM (in a gist or in the repo) that led to these architecture docs? Understand if you can't, but I'm sure it would be super instructive for people trying to understand the process of doing something like this and the types of guide rails that help to move the process forward productively.