Skip to content

When to Use

Decision Framework

Spec-driven development is most effective when applied strategically. Use this decision framework to determine whether the methodology is appropriate for your specific situation.

Primary Decision Criteria

Complexity Assessment

Use spec-driven development when:

  • The feature involves multiple components or systems
  • Integration with external APIs or services is required
  • Complex business logic or data transformations are involved
  • Multiple user roles or permission levels need to be handled
  • The feature affects existing system architecture

Consider alternatives when:

  • The change is a simple bug fix or minor adjustment
  • The implementation is well-understood and follows established patterns
  • The feature is purely cosmetic (UI-only changes with no logic)

Risk and Impact Evaluation

Use spec-driven development when:

  • The feature is customer-facing or affects user experience significantly
  • Failure could impact system stability or data integrity
  • The feature involves sensitive data or security considerations
  • Multiple teams or stakeholders depend on the outcome
  • The implementation will be difficult to change once deployed

Consider alternatives when:

  • The feature is internal tooling with limited impact
  • The change is easily reversible
  • You're building a throwaway prototype or proof of concept

Team and Collaboration Factors

Use spec-driven development when:

  • Multiple developers will work on the feature
  • Cross-functional collaboration is required (design, product, engineering)
  • Knowledge transfer and documentation are important
  • The team is distributed or works asynchronously
  • New team members need to understand the feature

Consider alternatives when:

  • You're working solo on a well-understood problem
  • The team has extensive shared context about the feature
  • Immediate implementation is more valuable than documentation

Timeline and Resource Considerations

Use spec-driven development when: - You have sufficient time for planning (typically 20-30% of total development time) - The cost of rework would be significant - Accurate estimation is important for project planning - The feature will be maintained and extended over time

Consider alternatives when: - You're under extreme time pressure for a critical fix - The feature is experimental and may be discarded - Resources for documentation and planning are severely limited

Project Type Recommendations

New Feature Development

  • User-facing features: Authentication systems, data dashboards, workflow tools
  • API development: REST endpoints, GraphQL schemas, webhook systems
  • Data processing: ETL pipelines, reporting systems, analytics features
  • Integration projects: Third-party service integrations, system migrations

System Architecture Changes

  • Database schema modifications: Adding new entities, changing relationships
  • Performance optimizations: Caching strategies, query optimization
  • Security enhancements: Access control, audit logging, encryption
  • Scalability improvements: Load balancing, distributed processing

Cross-Team Initiatives

  • Platform features: Shared libraries, common utilities, infrastructure
  • Compliance projects: GDPR, accessibility, security standards
  • Migration projects: Technology upgrades, system consolidation

Enhancement Projects

  • Feature extensions: Adding functionality to existing features
  • User experience improvements: Workflow optimization, interface redesign
  • Configuration and settings: Admin panels, user preferences
  • Reporting and analytics: New metrics, dashboard improvements

Maintenance and Refactoring

  • Code modernization: Updating deprecated APIs, framework upgrades
  • Technical debt reduction: Refactoring complex modules, improving test coverage
  • Documentation projects: API documentation, user guides

Simple Changes

  • Bug fixes: Single-line changes, configuration updates
  • Content updates: Text changes, image replacements
  • Style adjustments: CSS modifications, minor UI tweaks
  • Dependency updates: Library version bumps, security patches

Experimental Work

  • Proof of concepts: Technology evaluation, feasibility studies
  • Rapid prototypes: Quick mockups, throwaway implementations
  • A/B test variations: Simple feature toggles, minor variations

Emergency Situations

  • Critical hotfixes: Production outages, security vulnerabilities
  • Time-sensitive patches: Urgent customer requests, compliance deadlines
  • Rollback procedures: Reverting problematic deployments

Practical Examples

Scenario: Building a new user authentication system with OAuth integration, role-based permissions, and session management.

Why spec-driven development fits: - High complexity with multiple components (auth service, user management, permissions) - Security-critical functionality requiring careful design - Multiple stakeholders (security team, product, engineering) - Long-term maintenance and extension expected - Integration with external OAuth providers

Spec approach: - Requirements phase: Define user stories for different auth flows, security requirements - Design phase: Architecture for auth service, database schema, API design - Tasks phase: Step-by-step implementation of auth components, testing strategy

Scenario: Fixing a typo in a validation error message.

Why spec-driven development doesn't fit: - Extremely low complexity - No risk to system stability - Single developer can handle independently - Change is easily reversible - No architectural implications

Better approach: - Direct fix with code review - Simple test to verify the change - Update any relevant documentation

Scenario: Building a system to process customer data uploads, validate content, transform formats, and generate reports.

Why spec-driven development fits: - Complex data transformations and business logic - Multiple failure modes requiring error handling - Performance and scalability considerations - Integration with existing reporting systems - Regulatory compliance requirements

Spec approach: - Requirements phase: Data validation rules, transformation requirements, error handling - Design phase: Pipeline architecture, data flow, monitoring and alerting - Tasks phase: Incremental implementation of processing stages

Scenario: Updating the application's color palette to match new brand guidelines.

Why spec-driven development doesn't fit: - Primarily cosmetic changes - Well-understood implementation (CSS updates) - Low risk of system impact - Easy to iterate and adjust - No complex business logic

Better approach: - Design system documentation - Direct implementation with visual review - Automated testing for accessibility compliance

Decision Tree

Is the change complex or involve multiple components?
├─ Yes → Continue evaluation
└─ No → Consider direct implementation

Is the risk/impact of failure significant?
├─ Yes → Continue evaluation  
└─ No → Consider direct implementation

Do multiple people need to collaborate on this?
├─ Yes → Continue evaluation
└─ No → Consider direct implementation

Do you have time for proper planning (20-30% of dev time)?
├─ Yes → Use spec-driven development
└─ No → Consider direct implementation with minimal documentation

Adapting the Process

Lightweight Spec Process

For scenarios that fall between "full spec" and "direct implementation":

Mini-Spec Approach: - Brief requirements (key user stories only) - High-level design (architecture diagram, key decisions) - Task list (major implementation steps) - Skip detailed documentation and extensive examples

When to use mini-specs: - Medium complexity features - Tight timelines but some planning needed - Small team with good communication - Well-understood domain

Spec-First vs. Spec-Alongside

Spec-First (Recommended): - Complete spec before any implementation - Full review and approval process - Best for complex, high-risk features

Spec-Alongside: - Develop spec and implementation in parallel - Use spec to guide implementation decisions - Good for exploratory development with documentation needs

Integration with Development Workflows

Agile/Scrum Integration

  • Use specs for larger user stories or epics
  • Create specs during sprint planning
  • Reference specs during daily standups and reviews
  • Update specs based on sprint retrospective feedback

Continuous Integration

  • Include spec validation in CI pipeline
  • Ensure implementation matches spec requirements
  • Use specs for automated testing guidance
  • Update specs as part of the development process

Code Review Process

  • Include spec review as part of code review
  • Verify implementation follows spec design
  • Update specs when implementation reveals better approaches
  • Use specs to provide context for reviewers

Measuring Success

Indicators That Spec-Driven Development Is Working

  • Reduced rework and bug fixes after initial implementation
  • Faster onboarding of new team members to features
  • Better estimation accuracy for similar features
  • Improved stakeholder satisfaction with delivered features
  • Easier maintenance and extension of existing features

Warning Signs to Adjust Approach

  • Specs taking longer to write than implementation
  • Specs becoming outdated immediately after creation
  • Team resistance to following the process
  • Specs not being referenced during implementation
  • Over-documentation of simple features

Conclusion

Spec-driven development is a powerful methodology when applied appropriately. The key is recognizing when the investment in planning and documentation will pay dividends in reduced risk, improved quality, and better collaboration. Use the decision framework and examples in this guide to make informed choices about when to apply the full methodology, when to use a lightweight approach, and when to skip specs entirely in favor of direct implementation.

Remember that the goal is better software delivery, not perfect documentation. The spec process should serve your development goals, not become an end in itself.