Notes to Self: The Interview Between an Issue and a Spec
On 1 August I opened an issue that was three sentences long. A hundred and one minutes later the feature was merged, and the document that got it there ran to 457 lines . I didn't write those 457 lines. In fact, I didn't have to write any more documentation, and not because I simply allowed Claude to run amok. Here is the issue in full — control-api#265 , 225 characters: control-api#265 —…
On August 1st, I filed an issue concerning dashboard feeds in a control-api. The issue was brief, consisting of only three sentences. It required approximately 100 minutes for the feature to be merged into the codebase. The document that facilitated this merge ran for 457 lines.
The issue itself focused on the creation of manifest-backed dashboard feeds. For each dashboard, an auto-generated manifest was created, keyed by dashboard_id. Additionally, each sensor used by the dashboard was tagged to be included in the manifest. When a dashboard definition underwent changes, tags were added or removed from sensors accordingly.
The lifecycle of the issue unfolded as follows: at 14:25, the issue was opened with a concise 225-character description. At 14:54, the specification (FEAT-0007) was committed, containing 457 lines of code. The specification was subsequently merged at 15:35, and the implementation code was committed at 15:51. The implementation merge was completed at 16:06, closing the issue.
The remarkable aspect of this process was not its speed, but rather the creation of a spec document from a seemingly non-existent source. This transformation occurred at 14:54, when the issue was transformed into a fully-fledged spec. The preceding 29 minutes of activity were crucial, as they involved extensive research and decision-making by an automated agent, which read through every file in the repository and made informed decisions based on the findings.
Unlike traditional issue reporting, which often consists of brief, terse descriptions, this issue leveraged a more thorough and structured approach. The agent acted as an interviewer, asking clarifying questions and conducting research to supplement the original issue description. This process allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the problem, leading to a more accurate and effective solution.
The spec document produced from this process included extensive references to specific code locations and design decisions. These references provided crucial context for engineers working on the implementation, enabling them to build upon existing knowledge and avoid potential pitfalls. The spec also clearly outlined the boundaries and limitations of the work, ensuring that all stakeholders had a shared understanding of the project's scope.
In conclusion, the interview process between the issue and the spec proved to be a valuable and efficient method for transforming a brief issue description into a comprehensive and well-defined solution. By leveraging the capabilities of an automated agent and focusing on key decisions rather than exhaustive descriptions, this approach minimized the need for extensive documentation while still providing all necessary information for successful implementation.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
