indexion SDD (Spec-Driven Development)
Bridge indexion's quantitative spec alignment tools with SDD agent workflows (cc-sdd, codex, etc.).
Provides: RFC/document → SDD draft, spec↔impl drift detection, and a validation loop that feeds indexion's quantitative results into agent-driven qualitative review.
When to Use
- User wants to implement an RFC or specification as a library/package
- User asks to verify spec-to-implementation conformance
- User wants to set up a SDD project with cc-sdd + codex + indexion
- User says "run the SDD loop" or "validate against the spec"
- After
codex spec-implcompletes, to check for drift before merging
Important
- Set cc-sdd
--langto match the implementation language, not the spec language. If code is in English, use--lang en. Mismatched languages breakspec align diffvocabulary matching.
Process: RFC → Implementation → Validation
Step 0: Project Setup
Verify indexion is available before proceeding. The drift gate (Step 2.5) and validation loop (Step 3) depend on it:
If indexion is not installed, install it first. If the KGF for your
spec format is not recognized, update indexion to a version that
includes it. See Step 2.7 for the fallback when this cannot be resolved.
Step 1: Specification → SDD Draft (indexion)
Fetch the specification document (RFC, ISO standard, etc.) and prepare it:
The output uses ### Requirement N: and #### N.M: hierarchy matching
cc-sdd's expected ID format. The agent's $kiro-spec-requirements phase will
further refine into EARS format with acceptance criteria.
Supported specification formats:
Step 1.5: Specification Fidelity Check (indexion)
After writing requirements, verify they cover the source specification:
Traceability chain: spec align works between documents at the
same abstraction level. For full traceability, check each adjacent pair:
Do NOT align source spec directly against design or code — the vocabulary spaces differ too much (normative spec language vs. software design vs. code identifiers). Each hop bridges one abstraction gap.
Semantic fidelity review (not automatable):
spec align checks vocabulary overlap, but cannot detect requirements
that invert the source spec's intent while using the same vocabulary.
A common failure mode:
- Source spec: "The DCTDecode filter shall decode JPEG data into samples"
- Requirements draft: "For DCTDecode, the decoder shall return an error indicating the filter is not yet supported"
Both mention "DCTDecode", "filter", "shall" — vocabulary matches, so
spec align reports MATCHED. But the requirement says the opposite of
what the spec demands. This creates a hidden gap that only surfaces when
E2E tests fail (Step 2.9).
After spec draft generates requirements, review for these patterns:
"not yet supported","not implemented","placeholder","stub"— these indicate the draft punted on a spec requirement"shall return an error"for something the source spec says"shall decode/process/convert"— intent inversion- Requirements that group multiple spec features into a single "unsupported" bucket — each spec feature deserves its own requirement
Fix these before proceeding to Step 2. Leaving them creates a false sense of spec conformance that only E2E testing can expose.
Step 2: Agent SDD Phases (codex / claude)
cc-sdd v3+ uses skills mode ($kiro-spec-* commands).
Non-interactive execution with indexion gates between phases:
If DRIFTED items remain for the requirement your task addresses, fix them (add spec vocabulary to public declaration doc comments) and re-commit.
When all tasks are done, spec align status --fail-on drifted must exit 0.
Important
Commit your work after completing tasks. Do not leave changes uncommitted. PHASE_A_EOF
sed -i '' "s/<FEATURE>/$FEATURE/g; s/<pkg>/$PKG/g" $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-a.md
codex exec --full-auto --json -C .
"$(cat $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-a.md)" > $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-a.jsonl
Wait for Phase A to complete before running the gate
indexion spec align status $SPEC_DIR/requirements.md src/$PKG/
--threshold 0.3 --fail-on drifted
git add . && git commit -m "impl: Phase A types for $FEATURE"
--- Impl Phase B: Logic & Algorithms ---
Phase B implements actual processing logic. The Phase A types
are already committed, so Phase B focuses on function bodies.
cat > $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-b.md << 'PHASE_B_EOF'
Context
You are implementing Phase B (Logic & Algorithms) of the <FEATURE> feature.
Phase A (type definitions) is already committed. Read the existing type
definitions in src/<pkg>/ and the design in .kiro/specs/<FEATURE>/design.md.
Phase B Scope
In this phase, implement:
- Parsing logic (readers, decoders, interpreters)
- Conversion and transformation algorithms
- Validation logic beyond basic type construction
- Integration between types (connecting readers to data structures)
- Complete test implementations with real assertions
Every requirement that describes processing, conversion, interpretation, or validation MUST have a corresponding function implementation — not just a type definition.
SHALLOW Resolution Rule
SHALLOW is detected when a requirement matches a type definition in a file that has no non-trivial function implementations (>4 lines). To resolve:
Add functions to the SAME FILE where the type is defined.
Do NOT put logic in a separate file — SHALLOW checks per-file. If a type is defined in one file and its methods are in a different file, the type's file still has no functions and triggers SHALLOW.
Examples of functions that resolve SHALLOW:
- A method on the type with >4 lines of logic (match arms, loops, validation, computation)
- A constructor that does non-trivial work (parsing, validation)
Examples that do NOT resolve SHALLOW (too trivial, ≤4 lines):
- A default constructor that just returns a struct literal
- A one-liner boolean accessor
Per-Task Drift Gate (with shallow detection)
After completing each task and committing, run:
The --fail-on any gate includes SHALLOW detection: if a requirement
matched only to type definitions with no function implementations in
the same file, it is flagged as SHALLOW. You must add function
implementations to resolve SHALLOW items.
If DRIFTED, SPEC_ONLY, or SHALLOW items remain, fix them before proceeding.
When all tasks are done, spec align status --fail-on any must exit 0
with Shallow: 0.
Important
Commit your work after completing tasks. Do not leave changes uncommitted. PHASE_B_EOF
sed -i '' "s/<FEATURE>/$FEATURE/g; s/<pkg>/$PKG/g" $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-b.md
codex exec --full-auto --json -C .
"$(cat $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-b.md)" > $REPORT_DIR/impl-phase-b.jsonl &
CODEX_PID=$!
Operational notes:
- Always use
--jsonwith file redirect +tail -f. Piping through| tailsuppresses all output until completion. - For long prompts, write to a file and use
$(cat file.md). Shell HEREDOC with$()can cause stdin blocking. - Use
/loop(Claude Code) to pollgit log --oneline -1+psevery 60-120s during long impl runs.
Step 2.5: Per-Task Drift Gate (indexion)
After each $kiro-impl task commit, run spec alignment to verify the
task closed its corresponding requirement gap. Do NOT proceed to the
next task if the requirement addressed by the current task is still
DRIFTED, SPEC_ONLY, or SHALLOW.
Phase A gate (types only — SHALLOW is expected and tolerated):
Phase B gate (logic — SHALLOW must be zero):
SHALLOW detection: When a requirement matches only to type/struct/enum
declarations in a file that contains no non-trivial function implementations
(>4 lines), spec align classifies it as SHALLOW. This catches two patterns:
- Codex writes type definitions to satisfy vocabulary matching but omits the actual processing logic that the requirement demands.
- Codex adds logic in a separate file from the type definition. SHALLOW checks per-file, so a type in one file with methods only in another file still triggers SHALLOW on the type's file.
Resolution: Add methods to the same file where the type is defined. Trivial functions (constructors, one-liner accessors ≤4 lines) do not count. See Phase B prompt template for examples.
When including this gate in a Codex prompt, instruct the agent to run these commands after each task commit and fix any flagged items before proceeding. Example instruction block for the prompt:
Step 2.6: Phase B Iteration (SHALLOW Resolution Rounds)
Phase B rarely resolves all SHALLOW items in a single Codex session. Common causes:
- Codex adds logic in a new file instead of the type definition file
- Codex adds trivial constructors/accessors (≤4 lines) that don't count
- New type definitions are added without corresponding logic
Iteration protocol:
After each Phase B session completes:
-
Run the SHALLOW audit:
-
If
Shallow: 0, proceed to E2E verification (Step 2.9). -
If SHALLOW > 0, identify the specific items:
-
Write a targeted round prompt that:
- Lists the remaining SHALLOW items explicitly
- Names the exact files that need functions added
- States the rule: add functions to the same file as the type
- Specifies what methods to add (not just "fix SHALLOW")
-
Launch the next round:
Typical: 2-3 rounds. Round 1 adds core logic, Round 2 forces same-file methods, Round 3 catches remaining edge cases.
Step 2.7: Stall Detection and Recovery
Codex processes can stall (lost API connection, blocked review loop, etc.). This is common during long Phase B sessions.
Detection:
Recovery — never commit manually:
When a stall is confirmed:
- Kill the process:
kill $CODEX_PID - Check what was completed:
git log,git status,git diff --cached - If uncommitted work exists and tests pass, generate indexion reports:
- Write a resume prompt file that:
- States which tasks are committed and which have uncommitted work
- Includes the indexion reports as current-state evidence
- Instructs Codex to verify and commit uncommitted work, then continue
- Requires the per-task drift gate (Step 2.5) for all remaining tasks
- Restart:
codex exec --full-auto --json -C . "$(cat $REPORT_DIR/resume-prompt.md)" > $REPORT_DIR/impl-resume.jsonl &
Never commit implementation code manually. All commits must come from the Codex agent. If you commit manually, you bypass the SDD protocol (RED→GREEN evidence, review, verification) and invalidate the workflow.
Step 2.8: Drift Gate Proxy (when Codex cannot run indexion)
Codex runs indexion commands inside the impl project directory. If
indexion is not installed, is too old, or lacks required KGF specs,
the drift gate commands will fail or timeout inside Codex.
Prevention (recommended): Verify in Step 0 that indexion works in
the project directory before starting the SDD run:
If indexion is not available or broken, install or update it first.
Fallback — orchestrator-side drift gate:
If indexion cannot be fixed before the run (e.g., a required KGF spec
is not yet released), the orchestrator runs the drift gate externally:
- Tell Codex to skip drift gate commands in the impl prompt:
- After each Codex commit, the orchestrator runs:
- If DRIFTED/SPEC_ONLY items appear, run the vocab fix step (Step 3.5) with the externally generated reports.
--specs-dir caveat: When running the indexion binary directly
(not via the project's build tool), it may not find KGF specs
automatically. Pass --specs-dir explicitly:
Without this, spec align may return "No alignment data found" because
the requirement document format is unrecognized.
Step 2.9: E2E Verification (post-SHALLOW)
After all SHALLOW items are resolved (Shallow: 0), verify that the
implementation actually works end-to-end. spec align only checks
vocabulary — it cannot confirm functional correctness.
Write E2E tests that exercise the full pipeline against real input data:
Common E2E failure modes after SHALLOW=0:
- Type definitions exist and logic functions exist, but the pipeline raises errors on real input (missing encoding tables, unsupported font types, etc.)
- All tests pass on synthetic fixtures but fail on real files because fixtures don't exercise the full code path
- Functions are implemented but not wired into the top-level API
If E2E tests fail, write additional Codex prompts targeting the specific failure. The spec align gate ensures the vocabulary stays aligned while Codex fixes the implementation.
Step 2.10: Parallel Feature Execution
Multiple features can run in parallel Codex sessions:
Caveats:
- Multiple Codex sessions may edit overlapping files (e.g., multiple
features write to
src/graphics/). Git will auto-merge unless the same lines are modified. - If sessions commit in different branches, merge conflicts are the orchestrator's responsibility.
- Monitor all sessions with
/loop— check event counts, commits, and process vitals for each PID. - Stalls are more common with parallel sessions (API rate limits). Use Step 2.7 detection per-session.
Step 3: Validation Loop (indexion + agent)
This is where indexion adds value beyond pure agent review.
The validation script:
- Runs
spec verify(vocabulary gap between spec and impl) - Runs
spec align diff(requirement-level drift) - Runs
spec align trace(traceability matrix) - Runs
spec align status(CI-style pass/fail) - Injects all reports into the agent's
validate-implprompt - Agent produces GO/NO-GO decision with specific task numbers
- On
--fix, automatically re-runsspec-implfor failing tasks
Step 3.5: Vocabulary Alignment Fix (indexion + agent)
After $kiro-validate-impl passes but spec align shows DRIFTED/SPEC_ONLY,
the implementation is functionally correct but lacks spec vocabulary in doc
comments. This step closes that gap.
Note: $kiro-validate-impl (cc-sdd) does not invoke indexion's spec align
internally. This step bridges the two tools.
Key constraints:
- The prompt does NOT dictate specific vocabulary to add. It provides the alignment reports and lets the agent determine what to fix.
- The agent must target public declarations only — private function doc
comments are invisible to
spec align. - Typical: 1-2 fix cycles. If SPEC_ONLY persists, the agent may need
guidance that the relevant public API entry point should carry the
vocabulary (e.g. a top-level
openfunction documents the full flow).
Known blind spots:
-
CLI entry points with no public API: Main/entry-point modules often have no public declarations — all functions are private to the module.
spec alignextracts vocabulary only from public declarations, so entry-point modules always show Matched: 0 / SPEC_ONLY for all requirements. Workaround: split CLI logic into a library module that exposes public functions, with the entry point as a thin dispatcher. Align requirements against the library, not the entry point. -
Empty doc comments: Codex often writes doc comment syntax without any actual text content. These are invisible to
spec alignbecause they contain no vocabulary. The vocab fix prompt must explicitly instruct the agent: "Do not leave doc comments empty. Every public declaration must have a doc comment that describes its purpose using terminology from the requirements." -
Internal-only modules (private functions): When implementation logic is entirely private (not public),
spec aligncannot see it. This is common in filter/codec packages where a public pipeline function dispatches to private decoders. SHALLOW triggers on the type file even though logic exists. Workaround: either promote key internal functions to public (they become testable API surface), or consolidate spec vocabulary into the public pipeline function's doc comment so the requirement matches there instead. -
Literal requirements vs. identifier matching: Requirements that reference project-specific literals (package names, table numbers, configuration keys) will show as DRIFTED if the implementation doc comments don't mention the exact literal. This is usually a sign that the requirements contain project-specific details that don't belong there — fix the requirements to use generic descriptions, or accept that the vocab fix agent must propagate these literals.
-
"Fallback" framing vs. spec-mandated implementation: When the agent proposes a "fallback" for an unsupported feature, verify whether the feature is actually required by the source specification. Example: TrueType font cmap table parsing was proposed as a "fallback" but is in fact mandated by the spec for TrueType font encoding resolution. Framing spec requirements as fallbacks creates incorrect priority and may lead to incomplete implementation.
-
Vocabulary match ≠ functional correctness: DRIFTED=0 and SHALLOW=0 confirm vocabulary alignment but cannot verify that the implementation actually works. E2E tests (text extraction from real files, visual rendering comparison) are essential to catch:
- Type definitions that compile but never execute
- Processing pipelines that raise errors on real input
- Coordinate transforms that produce wrong output
- Font/encoding paths that silently return empty results
Step 4: Documentation Drift Detection (plan reconcile)
After implementation, use plan reconcile to detect drift between
implementation code and its documentation (README, doc comments, etc.):
plan reconcile complements spec align in the SDD workflow:
- spec align: requirements.md ↔ implementation code (spec conformance)
- plan reconcile: implementation code ↔ documentation (doc freshness)
Use spec align for pre-merge gates (CI). Use plan reconcile for
ongoing documentation maintenance after the feature ships.
Step 5: Visual E2E Verification (pixel diff)
For projects that produce visual output (PDF rendering, SVG export, image processing), vocabulary-based spec align is insufficient. Add pixel-level comparison against reference renderings.
Pipeline:
- Generate output from the library (e.g.,
pdf svg input.pdf output.svg) - Rasterize to PNG at a fixed DPI (
rsvg-convert,puppeteer, etc.) - Generate reference PNG from an established tool (
pdftoppm, etc.) - Compare with
pixelmatch— report diff percentage
Thresholds:
- < 0.01%: pixel-perfect (font AA differences only)
- < 0.1%: minor glyph positioning differences
- < 1%: visible text drift or image placement issues
-
1%: structural rendering failure
Iterative improvement: Visual precision requires multiple rounds. Each round fixes one category (font mapping → glyph positioning → image CTM → colour conversion). Track all PDFs per round to catch regressions — fixing one PDF must not break another.
Known limitations of visual diff:
- Font antialiasing differs between rasterizers (rsvg-convert vs pdftoppm)
- Sub-pixel rendering is platform-dependent
- 0.01% may be the practical floor for cross-rasterizer comparison
Individual Commands
spec draft — RFC/Document → SDD Requirements Draft
spec verify — Vocabulary Gap Check
spec align diff — Requirement-Level Drift
Reports: MATCHED, DRIFTED, SPEC_ONLY (spec with no impl match), IMPL_ONLY (impl with no spec match), SHALLOW (matched to type-only stubs without function implementations).
spec align trace — Traceability Matrix
Generates requirement → implementation mapping for auditing.
spec align status — CI Gate
spec align watch — Watch Mode
Reruns alignment when spec or implementation inputs change.
spec align suggest — Reconciliation Suggestions
Generates actionable suggestions to close spec↔impl gaps.
Threshold
Use --threshold 0.3 for SDD alignment commands. The default 0.6 is
too high because SDD acceptance criteria are short text matched against
code + doc comments, not full-document similarity.
Multi-Language Support
The SDD pipeline works with any language that has a KGF spec.
KGF Requirements for SDD
For spec align to work, the language's KGF must:
- Capture doc comments in declares edges —
docmust be non-empty - Use correct PEG alternative ordering — DocComment must be after declaration rules in the Item alternatives
- Handle NL between doc and keyword —
NL?orNL*afterdoc:DocComment?
Verify with: indexion kgf edges <file> — if declares edges lack doc=,
the KGF needs fixing.


