# Feature Specification: Refactor AST Generation Routes Workflow

**Feature Branch**: `002-refactor-ast-gen`
**Created**: 2025-09-22
**Status**: Draft
**Input**: User description: "refactor ast gen routes workflow"

## Execution Flow (main)
```
1. Parse user description from Input
   ’ If empty: ERROR "No feature description provided"
2. Extract key concepts from description
   ’ Identify: actors, actions, data, constraints
3. For each unclear aspect:
   ’ Mark with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question]
4. Fill User Scenarios & Testing section
   ’ If no clear user flow: ERROR "Cannot determine user scenarios"
5. Generate Functional Requirements
   ’ Each requirement must be testable
   ’ Mark ambiguous requirements
6. Identify Key Entities (if data involved)
7. Run Review Checklist
   ’ If any [NEEDS CLARIFICATION]: WARN "Spec has uncertainties"
   ’ If implementation details found: ERROR "Remove tech details"
8. Return: SUCCESS (spec ready for planning)
```

---

## ¡ Quick Guidelines
-  Focus on WHAT users need and WHY
- L Avoid HOW to implement (no tech stack, APIs, code structure)
- =e Written for business stakeholders, not developers

### Section Requirements
- **Mandatory sections**: Must be completed for every feature
- **Optional sections**: Include only when relevant to the feature
- When a section doesn't apply, remove it entirely (don't leave as "N/A")

### For AI Generation
When creating this spec from a user prompt:
1. **Mark all ambiguities**: Use [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: specific question] for any assumption you'd need to make
2. **Don't guess**: If the prompt doesn't specify something (e.g., "login system" without auth method), mark it
3. **Think like a tester**: Every vague requirement should fail the "testable and unambiguous" checklist item
4. **Common underspecified areas**:
   - User types and permissions
   - Data retention/deletion policies
   - Performance targets and scale
   - Error handling behaviors
   - Integration requirements
   - Security/compliance needs

---

## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*

### Primary User Story
As a developer using the atomctl code generation system, I need the AST-based route generation workflow to be refactored so that it is more maintainable, extensible, and follows consistent patterns with other generation workflows in the system.

### Acceptance Scenarios
1. **Given** a developer wants to generate route handlers from AST annotations, **When** they run the generation command, **Then** the system should correctly parse route definitions and generate appropriate handler code
2. **Given** existing route generation code has inconsistent patterns, **When** the refactoring is complete, **Then** all route generation should follow the same architectural patterns as other providers
3. **Given** the current system has duplicate logic, **When** the refactoring is complete, **Then** common functionality should be shared and DRY principles should be applied

### Edge Cases
- What happens when the system encounters unsupported route annotations?
- How does the system handle conflicting route definitions?
- What occurs when there are circular dependencies between route handlers?

## Requirements *(mandatory)*

### Functional Requirements
- **FR-001**: System MUST parse route-related annotations from AST structures
- **FR-002**: System MUST generate route handler code based on parsed annotations
- **FR-003**: Users MUST be able to define route patterns and HTTP methods through annotations
- **FR-004**: System MUST integrate route generation with existing provider generation workflow
- **FR-005**: System MUST eliminate duplicate code between route generation and other generation workflows
- **FR-006**: System MUST follow consistent error handling patterns across all generation workflows
- **FR-007**: System MUST provide clear feedback when route generation fails or encounters issues

*Example of marking unclear requirements:*
- **FR-008**: System MUST support [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: which HTTP methods? GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, or all?]
- **FR-009**: Route generation MUST handle [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: what level of route complexity? simple paths, parameters, wildcards?]

### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*
- **Route Definition**: Represents a route annotation containing path, HTTP method, and handler information
- **Route Generator**: Component responsible for transforming route annotations into executable code
- **Route Parser**: Component that extracts route information from AST structures
- **Route Template**: Code generation template that produces the final route handler code

---

## Review & Acceptance Checklist
*GATE: Automated checks run during main() execution*

### Content Quality
- [ ] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs)
- [ ] Focused on user value and business needs
- [ ] Written for non-technical stakeholders
- [ ] All mandatory sections completed

### Requirement Completeness
- [ ] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
- [ ] Requirements are testable and unambiguous
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable
- [ ] Scope is clearly bounded
- [ ] Dependencies and assumptions identified

---

## Execution Status
*Updated by main() during processing*

- [x] User description parsed
- [x] Key concepts extracted
- [x] Ambiguities marked
- [x] User scenarios defined
- [x] Requirements generated
- [x] Entities identified
- [ ] Review checklist passed

---