SPIR spec template is dead code: no prompt, consult type, or porch check references it

[waleedkadous]

Problem (reported from a production SPIR workspace, 2026-07-28; flagged by the owner)

codev-skeleton/protocols/spir/templates/spec.md exists but nothing in the pipeline delivers or enforces it:

1. prompts/specify.md never references the template — it describes required content in prose only.
2. Porch's spec-approval gate checks only that the spec file exists, not its structure.
3. consult-types/spec-review.md has no template/structure check.

Net effect: builders never see the template unless they go looking. In the reporting workspace, the builder pattern-matched the previous spec's free-form structure, 3-way review passed it, and both of that repo's SPIR specs are off-template — discovered only when the human asked why.

Suggested fixes (any/all, from the report)

• Reference the template explicitly in prompts/specify.md ('structure per templates/spec.md' — or better, per the deliver-don't-fetch convention, inline the required heading skeleton into the prompt).
• Add a structure line to the spec-review consult type so reviewers check it.
• Optionally: a porch check for required headings at spec-approval.

Audit scope

The same disease presumably applies to plan/review templates in SPIR and to ASPIR/PIR skeletons — audit all template references across protocols before fixing one.

Sequencing note

Land AFTER PR #1278 (Spec 1252) merges — that PR makes codev-skeleton/ the single owner of these files and adds the ownership map; this issue's fix should register the templates' wiring in that map rather than creating new unowned references. Conceptually this is the same class 1252 attacked: an authored artifact with no owning consumer is dead code that silently rots.

[waleedkadous]

Architect verification (2026-07-28) — confirmed at the canonical source, with one correction

Verified against codev-skeleton/ in this repo (not the reporting workspace's local copies), so this is not project-specific:

1. ✅ Confirmed: spir/prompts/specify.md contains no template reference and no {{> }} include. The spec template is dead in the pipeline.
2. ✅ Confirmed: spir/consult-types/spec-review.md has no structure/template check.
3. ✅ Confirmed: porch's gate check is existence-only.

Correction to the audit assumption: the plan template is NOT dead — both spir/prompts/plan.md:79 and aspir/prompts/plan.md:79 inline it via {{> protocols/spir/templates/plan.md}}, using exactly the include mechanism porch resolves (porch/prompts.ts:82). So the disease is an asymmetric oversight, and the fix precedent already exists in-tree:

Template	Wired?
templates/plan.md	✅ inlined in spir + aspir plan prompts
templates/spec.md	❌ dead — no include in spir or aspir specify prompts
templates/review.md	❌ dead — no include in spir or aspir review prompts
PIR plan prompt	❌ no include either

Recommended fix shape: add the same {{> …}} include to specify/review prompts (matching the plan precedent — this also satisfies the deliver-don't-fetch convention, since porch expands the partial into the delivered prompt), plus the structure line in the spec-review/review consult types. The porch heading-check remains optional hardening.

This also explains why the reporting workspace's plans looked fine while its specs drifted off-template.

[waleedkadous]

On it! Working on a fix now.