Spec Driven Development
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
Description from the maker (original English)
Scoped deterministic SRD 5.2.1 rules checks for agents — applied rules cited, boundaries explicit.
These three are never merged into one score: opinions, measurements and popularity are different things.
We have not written a plain-language summary for this one yet. Below are the facts we read from the registry.
Pick the AI app you use, then copy the settings.
You need
Which app do you use?
Pick your app above. We remember it, so next time the button says “Install in …”.
Open Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config, and paste this into claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"srdcheck": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}Run this in your terminal
claude mcp add srdcheck -- uvx srdcheckPaste into .cursor/mcp.json in your project, or ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"srdcheck": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
Paste into .vscode/mcp.json in your project
{
"servers": {
"srdcheck": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}Your browser asks to open the app, then the app shows the settings and asks you to confirm. Key values are left empty for you to fill in.
This one runs on your computer, and ChatGPT can only connect to servers on the internet. Pick another app.
Your choice stays on this device in a cookie; no account needed.
These settings are generated from the maker’s registry entry. If the README says otherwise, follow the README.
Runs on your computer; the tool list appears in your AI app after you install it.
We check information anyone can see; we have not read the code. Checks that do not apply are left out of the count. · Checked Nov 7, 2026
The registry name was verified with the GitHub account chaoz23, which owns the repo
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
We have not read this repo from GitHub yet
This one runs on your computer; there is no internet endpoint
Runs on your computer and uses local settings instead
Runs on your computer; we can only read tool lists from internet endpoints
Compared with every active server in this category in the registry. Stars count only when the publisher owns the repo.
It passed 1 of 1 applicable basic checks. We have not read the code. Before adding a key or token, see what access the server asks for and use a key with only the permissions you need.
The registry does not list a required key, though some servers ask you to sign in on first use.
It runs on your computer. Your AI app starts it when needed, and data does not pass through the maker’s servers (unless it calls an online service itself).
The GitHub repo last changed –, and the latest version (0.8.0) reached the registry 3 months ago.
Apps that support MCP, such as Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and VS Code. You also need Python (uv) on your computer.
In the same category: Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, SuperCollider
Servers in the same category from other makers, sorted by stars.
Reading a card:★ GitHub starsiThree pillars: reviews · checks · usageiUpdated = latest version published to the registryi
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
Remote Desktop Commander: use files, terminal and processes on your own computers from any AI app.
Make sound with SuperCollider: synths, drums, chords, melodies and soundscapes over OSC.
Copied from the maker’s repo as written. PopNx MCP has not reviewed or endorsed it. HTML, images and scripts are removed. Links lead off this site.
A shared rules rail for agents: named, cited checks with explicit boundaries, so every caller can use the same deterministic result without mistaking a partial check for global legality.
Machine verdicts over specific rules of the System Reference Document 5.2.1: cited when a rule is applied, reproducible, offline, and honest enough to refuse questions outside the shipped scope. The rules lawyer for agents — including an agent acting as the authorized DM.
Agents start here → [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — the front door: when to call this, worked examples, MUST/MUST NOTs. Family contract: FAMILY.md.
Status: v0.9.0 alpha — young but real, building in the open. The kill tests that shaped the product — including the one that killed half our original idea — are in eval/RESULTS-phase0.md; the with/without-rails demo is in demo/mage-hand/; the truth scorecard below is generated by CI.
Runtime and operating-system guarantees are defined in the support matrix: Python 3.10–3.13, a full Ubuntu suite, and explicit installed-artifact smoke contracts on Windows and macOS.
A game increasingly runs not as one model but as *several agents sharing one evolving state* — a GM, player agents, a rules referee, tool-callers. The moment more than one mind adjudicates, the binding problem stops being any single agent's knowledge or attention budget and becomes consistency: five capable models will each read the SRD and rule on grapple, concentration, or a death save a little differently, and the shared game state quietly desyncs. No amount of individual intelligence guarantees they agree with *each other*, and every re-derivation is another chance to drift. The fix is a deterministic rail they all call — the same atoms, the same citations, the same verdict every time — so every applied-rule result carries one provenance any agent (or a human) can audit. Table rulings retain separate ruling lineage. That is where srdcheck stops being a convenience and becomes load-bearing.
Even at a table of one, the rail earns its place. A model running a game is a brilliant improviser with a finite attention budget: every mechanical micro-check it handles in-context — *is this legal, is that slot spent, does the reaction refresh this round* — spends tokens and attention that belong to the only work that needs a mind, the story. And the checks a model *can* answer, it cannot prove, cannot reproduce, and — as our own benchmark showed — will not refuse when the question is outside the rules' jurisdiction.
We tested this before building. Frontier models answered our SRD rules questions nearly perfectly — and confidently ruled on house rules, GM discretion, and content that doesn't exist in the SRD, where the only correct answer is "not my call." Small local models got 19–30% wrong with zero refusals. So srdcheck does not compete with what models know. It is a rail: structured facts in, a deterministic scoped result out, with citations whenever it applies a rule — and the *same* rail for every agent at the table.
srdcheck answers named, bounded questions such as: *does this proposal pass the modeled action-economy check?* and *which modeled budget option kinds remain?* See the generated capability and claim map for the canonical checked and unchecked scope of every tool.
0 = passes the checked scope, 1 = conflicts with the checked scope, 2 = cannot adjudicate. Every applied rule carries its SRD citation; boundary refusals do not invent citations.coverage_level, checked_scope, unchecked_scope, and assumptions on every result and separately reports asserted/consumed/derived/missing facts, the advisory rule_result, any scoped DM table_decision, and explicit state_mutation. Every legal explanation says it is legal only within that checked scope.event.apply emits an idempotent transition proposal bound to the exact evaluated state; transition.commit rejects a stale/out-of-order proposal and returns the same semantic receipt on retry. The agent-DM or host still performs the atomic state write. See safe state transitions.--pipe, --schema, tool.json at the repo root. Humans get plain-English *why* in the same payload; agents treat that prose as explanatory, not contractual.See docs/product-truths.md for the invariants this project holds itself to, docs/anatomy-of-a-turn.md for executable-today versus target examples, and docs/compatibility-policy.md for the N/N-1 machine contract and correction policy.
Maintainer and acquisition diligence lives in the takeover inventory, with linked architecture, release, incident-response, and support runbooks. Unchecked takeover items are explicit gaps, not implied readiness.
Show your work. A big context window can *read* the SRD; srdcheck's value is the layer above — a consistent, cited set of rule atoms and a shared schema that several agents can rely on without each re-deriving the rules into context and drifting apart. docs/atom-concordance.md is the audit trail for that layer: every rule the engine applies, mapped to the exact SRD text it's grounded in (forward and inverse), generated and CI-checked-fresh, with a verbatim-citation oracle proving each quote really is on its cited page. A machine-readable atom-concordance.json is the slim index an agent can load to know what the rail covers and where it came from.
Honesty is the product (truth T8), so the boundaries are stated, not implied. The current SRD adapter covers combat-turn fundamentals; it does not yet check:
turn.plan judges the turn's *action economy* — that you spent at most one action, one bonus action, one reaction, one spell slot. It does not verify that a feature actually grants a given action. A lone two-weapon-fighting offhand attack is "action-economy legal" even though the 2024 rules require the Attack action first; that prerequisite lives in the character's features, which this version doesn't model. The success message says so explicitly.damage/heal/death-save; save.check and concentration.check resolve caller-rolled saves), but *what a given spell does* — Fireball's 8d6, Hold Person's paralysis on a failed save — is the long-tail swamp and stays refused. srdcheck computes the save; it does not roll the dice or apply the spell's bespoke effect.jurisdiction; in adapter 0.2.1 the name registries cover spells, creatures, conditions, classes, subclasses, species, feats, and backgrounds (census-anchored against the source text in CI). Background coverage is jurisdiction-only: it recognizes the four backgrounds actually present in SRD 5.2.1 (Acolyte, Criminal, Sage, and Soldier) but does not yet expose their mechanics as structured facts.missing-fact until its relevant distance and, when it carries or manipulates an object, weight are supplied. A prohibition or an already-exceeded limit is decisive and does not trigger an irrelevant repair loop. A turn.plan move requires explicit feet; omission is never treated as a zero-foot move.Nonsensical inputs (negative Speed, a 99th-level spell, exhaustion past 6) return exit 2 rather than a confident-looking answer. When in doubt, srdcheck refuses — a wrong verdict is the only unforgivable bug.
$ pip install git+https://github.com/chaoz23/srdcheck
$ python -m srdcheck jurisdiction "Fireball" # exit 0 — known content $ python -m srdcheck jurisdiction "Hexblade" # exit 2 — not in the SRD, honestly refused $ python -m srdcheck query mage-hand.use '{"kind": "attack"}' { "verdict": "illegal", "exit_code": 1, "why": "The hand can't attack.", "citations": [{"section": "SRD 5.2.1 p.145 'Spells > Mage Hand'", "page": 145, "quote": "The hand can't attack"}], "rule_ids": ["mage-hand.cant-attack"], "adapter": "srd-5.2.1@0.2.1", "coverage_level": "rule-surface-complete", "checked_scope": ["listed uses and prohibitions", "10-pound limit", "30-foot range for the proposal"], "unchecked_scope": ["fine-manipulation ambiguity", "duration or range trigger tracking across events", "narrative consequences"], "assumptions": ["the supplied use kind describes the proposal", "supplied weight and distance facts are accurate when relevant to the result"] } $ python -m srdcheck query mage-hand.use '{"kind": "attack"}' --table-evaluation
$ python -m srdcheck query save.check '{"modifier":2,"dc":10,"d20_result":12,"save_ability":"dex","saver_conditions":[]}' \ --table-evaluation --table-context '{"se
Only the beginning is shown; read the rest in the repo