This guide covers common workflow patterns for OpenSpec and when to use each one. For basic setup, see Getting Started. For command reference, see Commands.
Traditional workflows force you through phases: planning, then implementation, then done. But real work doesn't fit neatly into boxes.
OPSX takes a different approach:
Traditional (phase-locked):
PLANNING ────────► IMPLEMENTING ────────► DONE
│ │
│ "Can't go back" │
└────────────────────┘
OPSX (fluid actions):
proposal ──► specs ──► design ──► tasks ──► implement
Key principles:
- Actions, not phases - Commands are things you can do, not stages you're stuck in
- Dependencies are enablers - They show what's possible, not what's required next
Customization: OPSX workflows are driven by schemas that define artifact sequences. See Customization for details on creating custom schemas.
When you know what you want to build and just need to execute:
/opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──► /opsx:apply ──► /opsx:verify ──► /opsx:archive
Example conversation:
You: /opsx:new add-logout-button
AI: Created openspec/changes/add-logout-button/
Ready to create: proposal
You: /opsx:ff
AI: Creating all planning artifacts...
✓ proposal.md
✓ specs/
✓ design.md
✓ tasks.md
Ready for implementation!
You: /opsx:apply
AI: Working through tasks...
✓ Added logout button to header
✓ Implemented session clearing
✓ Added confirmation dialog
All tasks complete!
You: /opsx:archive
AI: ✓ Merged specs
✓ Archived change
Best for: Small to medium features, bug fixes, straightforward changes.
When requirements are unclear or you need to investigate first:
/opsx:explore ──► /opsx:new ──► /opsx:continue ──► ... ──► /opsx:apply
Example conversation:
You: /opsx:explore
AI: What would you like to explore?
You: I want to improve page load performance but I'm not sure
where the bottlenecks are.
AI: Let me help investigate...
[Analyzes bundle sizes, identifies slow queries, reviews
component render patterns]
I found three main bottlenecks:
1. Large unoptimized images
2. Synchronous data fetching in ProductList
3. Re-renders from context changes
Which would you like to address first?
You: Let's tackle the data fetching issue.
You: /opsx:new optimize-product-list-fetching
AI: Created change. Ready to create: proposal
You: /opsx:continue
AI: Creating proposal based on our exploration...
[Writes proposal incorporating investigation insights]
Ready to create: specs, design
Which would you like next?
You: /opsx:continue
AI: Creating specs...
Best for: Performance optimization, debugging, architectural decisions, unclear requirements.
Work on multiple changes at once:
Change A: /opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──► /opsx:apply (in progress)
│
context switch
│
Change B: /opsx:new ──► /opsx:ff ──────► /opsx:apply
Example conversation:
You: I'm working on add-dark-mode but got pulled into a bug fix
You: /opsx:new fix-login-redirect
AI: Created openspec/changes/fix-login-redirect/
You: /opsx:ff
AI: ✓ Created planning artifacts
You: /opsx:apply
AI: Working on fix-login-redirect...
[Implements the fix]
All tasks complete!
You: /opsx:archive
AI: ✓ Archived fix-login-redirect
You: Let's get back to dark mode
You: /opsx:apply add-dark-mode
AI: Resuming add-dark-mode...
Picking up at task 2.3: Update Header...
Best for: Parallel work streams, urgent interrupts, team collaboration.
When you have multiple completed changes, use /opsx:bulk-archive:
You: /opsx:bulk-archive
AI: Found 3 completed changes:
- add-dark-mode (all tasks done)
- fix-login-redirect (all tasks done)
- update-footer (all tasks done)
Checking for spec conflicts...
⚠ add-dark-mode and update-footer both touch specs/ui/
Inspecting codebase to resolve...
Both changes are implemented. Will apply in chronological order.
Archive all 3 changes?
You: Yes
AI: ✓ Archived add-dark-mode
✓ Archived fix-login-redirect
✓ Archived update-footer
Specs merged in order: add-dark-mode → update-footer
Bulk archive detects when multiple changes touch the same specs and resolves conflicts by checking what's actually implemented.
The recommended completion flow:
/opsx:apply ──► /opsx:verify ──► /opsx:archive
│ │
validates prompts to sync
implementation if needed
/opsx:verify validates implementation against your artifacts across three dimensions:
You: /opsx:verify
AI: Verifying add-auth...
COMPLETENESS
✓ All 12 tasks in tasks.md are checked
✓ All requirements in specs have corresponding code
⚠ Scenario "Session timeout after inactivity" not tested
CORRECTNESS
✓ Implementation matches spec intent
✓ Edge cases from scenarios are handled
✓ Error states match spec definitions
COHERENCE
✓ Design decisions reflected in code structure
✓ Naming conventions consistent with design.md
⚠ Design mentions "event-driven" but implementation uses polling
SUMMARY
─────────────────────────────
Critical issues: 0
Warnings: 2
Ready to archive: Yes (with warnings)
Recommendations:
1. Add test for session timeout scenario
2. Consider refactoring to event-driven as designed, or update design.md
What verify checks:
| Dimension | What it validates |
|---|---|
| Completeness | All tasks done, all requirements implemented, scenarios covered |
| Correctness | Implementation matches spec intent, edge cases handled |
| Coherence | Design decisions reflected in code, patterns consistent |
Verify won't block archive, but it surfaces issues you might want to address first.
/opsx:archive completes the change and moves it to the archive:
You: /opsx:archive
AI: Archiving add-auth...
Artifact status:
✓ proposal.md exists
✓ specs/ exists
✓ design.md exists
✓ tasks.md exists (12/12 tasks complete)
Delta specs: Not yet synced to main
→ Would you like to sync now?
You: Yes
AI: ✓ Synced specs to openspec/specs/auth/spec.md
✓ Moved to openspec/changes/archive/2025-01-24-add-auth/
Change archived successfully.
Archive will prompt if specs aren't synced. It won't block on incomplete tasks, but it will warn you.
| Situation | Use |
|---|---|
| Clear requirements, ready to build | /opsx:ff |
| Exploring, want to review each step | /opsx:continue |
| Want to iterate on proposal before specs | /opsx:continue |
| Time pressure, need to move fast | /opsx:ff |
| Complex change, want control | /opsx:continue |
Rule of thumb: If you can describe the full scope upfront, use /opsx:ff. If you're figuring it out as you go, use /opsx:continue.
A common question: when is updating an existing change okay, and when should you start a new one?
Update the existing change when:
- Same intent, refined execution
- Scope narrows (MVP first, rest later)
- Learning-driven corrections (codebase isn't what you expected)
- Design tweaks based on implementation discoveries
Start a new change when:
- Intent fundamentally changed
- Scope exploded to different work entirely
- Original change can be marked "done" standalone
- Patches would confuse more than clarify
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Is this the same work? │
└──────────────┬──────────────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────┼──────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
Same intent? >50% overlap? Can original
Same problem? Same scope? be "done" without
│ │ these changes?
│ │ │
┌────────┴────────┐ ┌──────┴──────┐ ┌───────┴───────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │
YES NO YES NO NO YES
│ │ │ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
UPDATE NEW UPDATE NEW UPDATE NEW
Example: "Add dark mode"
- "Need to also support custom themes" → New change (scope exploded)
- "System preference detection is harder than expected" → Update (same intent)
- "Let's ship toggle first, add preferences later" → Update then archive, then new change
One logical unit of work per change. If you're doing "add feature X and also refactor Y", consider two separate changes.
Why it matters:
- Easier to review and understand
- Cleaner archive history
- Can ship independently
- Simpler rollback if needed
Before committing to a change, explore the problem space:
You: /opsx:explore
AI: What would you like to explore?
You: How should we handle rate limiting for our API?
AI: Let me investigate your current setup and options...
[Researches codebase, considers patterns]
I see three approaches we could take:
1. Middleware-based (simple, per-endpoint)
2. Redis-backed (scalable, shared state)
3. Token bucket per user (fair, complex)
Your current stack suggests #1 or #2. What's your scale?
Exploration clarifies thinking before you create artifacts.
Use /opsx:verify to check implementation matches artifacts:
You: /opsx:verify
AI: Verifying add-dark-mode...
✓ All tasks in tasks.md are checked
✓ Requirements in specs have corresponding code
✓ Design decisions are reflected in implementation
Ready to archive!
Catches mismatches before you close out the change.
Good names make openspec list useful:
Good: Avoid:
add-dark-mode feature-1
fix-login-redirect update
optimize-product-query changes
implement-2fa wip
For full command details and options, see Commands.
| Command | Purpose | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
/opsx:explore |
Think through ideas | Unclear requirements, investigation |
/opsx:new |
Start a change | Beginning any new work |
/opsx:continue |
Create next artifact | Step-by-step artifact creation |
/opsx:ff |
Create all planning artifacts | Clear scope, ready to build |
/opsx:apply |
Implement tasks | Ready to write code |
/opsx:verify |
Validate implementation | Before archiving, catch mismatches |
/opsx:sync |
Merge delta specs | Optional—archive prompts if needed |
/opsx:archive |
Complete the change | All work finished |
/opsx:bulk-archive |
Archive multiple changes | Parallel work, batch completion |
- Commands - Full command reference with options
- Concepts - Deep dive into specs, artifacts, and schemas
- Customization - Create custom workflows