am I the only one who's always confused ?

[jmls]

I have been trying to "get it" for a week now, but always have to refer back to the docs. I'm talking about the workflow of

new-spec -> create-spec -> implement spec

for me, create and new are the same thing, - hence I often get the order wrong. Would it be possible for me to create an alias like create-tasks ? I get implement-spec, it's just the new and create

my mind always orders c before n as well, causes no end of confusion this side of the keyboard :)

[jamesbondini]

Yeah, I also have to think extra hard to remember the steps and usually keep the documentation open as a reference. It's only 3 steps, so it will get easier with time, of course. But the naming could be more intuitive. After all, if there are only 3 steps to remember, it should be straightforward from the beginning. Maybe numbering the steps could help with it being more intuitive?

[jmls]

"next crappy initiative" works for me if coming from the boss :)

[Frits1980]

You are not the only one.
I think research-spec would be more logic in this case.

[raniero-russo-tr]

agreed, plan-spec or research-spec would maybe be more intuitive than 'new' as a step that precedes a 'create' step.

also hello all my fellow confused people 👋 .

[Frits1980]

Maybe even best of both worlds. Better naming and numbering. Because i also like the numbering. In the docs on the website the process has numbers also. Plan 0 and then the rest. So it would make sense to do it here also. I would start the command with the number though. Easy to start typing /1 or /2 and let CC fill in the rest.

[tonydehnke]

Adding numbers might make it clearer. New-Spec-1, Create-Spec-2, Implement Spec 3.

OR

Spec-New(1)
Spec-Create(2)
Spec-Implement(3)

That way when we do /spec we would see all 3 and it would be clear.