Publishes prototype application specifications, not source code. Each app subdirectory holds a SPEC.md precise enough that an engineer or coding agent with zero access to the private reference implementation can build a functionally faithful version from the document alone — status codes, field names, validation predicates, rate limits, error shapes, and concurrency guarantees pinned down exactly. An acceptance checklist at the end of each spec is the success criteria (and doubles as a test plan).
The bet: publish the design instead of the source, and use fixed specs + checklists as a re-runnable benchmark for how well a coding agent turns a complete spec into working software with no reference implementation.
Private reference apps for the specs exist but are not linked here (descriptive / portfolio context only). Wiki entries for those siblings will land separately.
Static GitHub Pages site (Markdown + HTML, no app backend):
poker/ — SPEC.md and architecture.htmlretro/ — SPEC.md and architecture.htmlpoker — no-signup, real-time planning poker estimation tool
retro — no-signup, real-time team retro board tool
Both specs have driven real cleanroom builds against their acceptance checklists. Each run below was given only SPEC.md — no access to the original app — and built both poker and retro:
| Harness | Model | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | Sonnet 5 | Working implementation on the first attempt, both apps |
| Grok Build | Grok 4.5 | Both apps built, tests included, ~10 minutes each |
| Antigravity CLI | Gemini 6 Flash | Both apps built in 10 minutes or under |
That is evidence the specs are precise enough to reproduce usable implementations across model providers and coding harnesses — not a formal multi-run scoreboard. Architecture will vary by agent; the checklist is what defines pass/fail.
The Grok and Antigravity rows are backed by an actual artifact: eswat2/spec-cleanroom (public) archives both agents' full source and tests built from these same specs, plus a cross-comparison review of the two implementations. The Claude Code run's output wasn't preserved as a separate artifact.
Each spec'd app also has an architecture.html mapping the private reference implementation's actual file layout and function names. Published for human/portfolio browsing only — deliberately kept out of the cleanroom-build path. Handing it to a coding agent would bias the build toward the original layout instead of testing whether the spec alone is sufficient.
MIT (LICENSE in the repo).