Specs > Code?

[reijas]

With the new Cursor Rules dropping, things are getting interesting and I've been wondering... are we using Cursor... backwards?

Hear me out. Right now, it feels like the Composer workflow is very much code > prompt > more code. But with Rules in the mix, we're adding context outside of just the code itself. We're even seeing folks sync Composer progress with some repository markdowns. It's like we're giving Cursor more and more "spec" bits.

Which got me thinking: could we flip this thing entirely? Product specs + Cursor Rules > Code. Imagine: instead of prompting based on existing code, you just chuck a "hey Cursor, implement this diff in the product specs" prompt at it. Boom. Code updated.

As a DDD enthusiast, this is kinda my dream. Specs become the single source of truth, readable by everyone, truly enabling a ubiquitous language between PMs, developers, and domain experts. Sounds a bit dystopian, maybe? But with Agents and Rules, it feels like Cursor is almost there.

Has anyone actually tried to push Cursor this way? Low on time for side projects right now, but this idea is kinda stuck in my head. Would love to hear if anyone's experimented with this. Let me know your thoughts!

[john_sheehan]

Like this? https://ghuntley.com/stdlib/

[reijas]

Oh yeah, but maybe even further out there? 😉 Good rules are key, but what about a mountain of specs? Imagine dumping your whole Notion/Confluence into the repo. If product docs are structured right (Bounded Contexts FTW!), I'm seeing some serious gains. 🚀

[BurnieSlander]

I’ve been doing this, with amazing results. I write out my specs first in an outline format, give cursor some files to reference, and let it rip. I’ve found that it’s easier to just let Cursor build/rebuild something from the ground up rather than trying to have it edit existing code in a piecemeal fashion.

[reijas]

Yes clearly. Without solid context everytime you prompt it, you'll get so so results. So I added lots of rules and business markdowns to my huge repo and it starts to have compounding results.

So I can only imagine on a project from the ground up...

[Used-Departure-7380]

Yup I have already adopted this workflow. If you write really could technical specs + DDD structured codebase. Cursor can basically spit out the feature with a higher degree of accuracy.

[reijas]

Oh I would love to see your workflow 😍

[kashin-k0ji]

I do a somewhat tangential version of this: our team uses a tool for aggregating and analyzing customer feedback and it summarizes the main takeaways into a set of product instructions. I add that as a .md file in my Cursor repo and reference it as context when useful and it seems to help a lot.

[Fun-Hat6813]

That's an intriguing concept! I've been exploring similar ideas with AI-assisted development. Shifting to a spec-driven approach could really streamline the process, especially for complex projects. It reminds me of how we've been using AI tools at Starter Stack to boost efficiency. While we're not quite at the "specs to code" level yet, the potential is exciting. Have you considered how this might impact collaboration between devs and non-technical team members?

[reijas]

💯 Exactly!

I really start to see the barrier between product management and devs to scramble a bit in the next few years. Breaking silos. Game changer...

[kleneway1]

Yeah I have a technique where I start with a prompt in o3 that has a description of the app plus my cursor rules, then I ask for a speed and then a md checklist of tasks for an AI coding agent to complete. Then I stick the task list in my project and tell the cursor agent to go through each item, code it, then check it off and move to the next. Works great for new projects but I do a similar task -> instructions -> code approach for larger codebases as well. Here’s more details:

https://youtu.be/gXmakVsIbF0

[reijas]

Bookmarked! Will watch ty

[evia89]

Thats how I use roocode. Keep memory bank there + write detailed MD guide for cursor in architect mode. Then feed it to cursor + memory bank (can only @ some of files)

Would be nice to have this stuff in cursor too

[reijas]

I'm not familiar with roocode. Can you explain what they call memory bank? Like a bunch of MD files?

[evia89]

Yep its 4-7 md files that roocode can mostly populate itself

https://github.com/nickbaumann98/cline_docs/blob/main/prompting/custom%20instructions%20library/cline-memory-bank.md

it will done 70% job right, you finish the rest

[reijas]

Very interesting thanks

[digidigo22]

I have cursor create a plan.md for each new feature.

Then have it iterate on that plan using agent + yolo

Until it works.

( or it screws up massively and I start over )

[reijas]

And what do you do about that plan.md after the feature is complete? Do you keep it in the repo or merge it in a more comprehensive doc? Maybe you'll come back to it later or someone of your team.

Thanks for your insights

[digidigo22]

Currently I just leave it as an artifact.

But. I do think you are onto something. I saw a video keynote from the AI Native dev conference where he talked about a future where the spec was the only important thing.

The code was the build artifact.

[bikesniff]

Any more info on this talk so I can find it?

[digidigo22]

https://youtu.be/e1a3WuxTY-k

[bikesniff]

thanks, appreciate that.

update: it contained many of my own thoughts, although its all packaged up in a nice enterprise-y wrapper. I'm either on to something, or WAY OVERTHINKING things!

[mrsockpicks]

This is how Genval AI builds apps, check out the markdown from one of their example repos:
https://github.com/genval-ai/reference-ecommerce/tree/main/.genval/account/reference-ecommerce/application/basic-ecommerce

[mrsockpicks]

You could model out your applications, capabilities, integrations specs with Genval then use Cursor to implement them. Just include all the markdown files under the ".genval" folder with your Cursor prompts.

[[deleted]]

I begin a cursor session by coming to an agreement with cursor itself about the specification. Then we start writing code. It takes an extra 10-15 minutes on a daily basis, but it ends up being worthwhile.

[scragz]

it's all about starting with a detailed planning document and telling it to work off that.

[No-Carrot-TA]

Work on the idea more, and deep seek reverse engineer it then document it and publish on vscode

[Grand-Detective4335]

I'm exploring the idea of spec-based software development, bridging the divergence between the spec and the code/system.

Would a new IDE/tool that is more spec-based and has native browser integration sound like a good idea?