Spec Driven Development
MCP Server that facilitates spec-driven development workflows, not just Vibe Coding.
제작자가 쓴 설명(영어 원문)
Scoped deterministic SRD 5.2.1 rules checks for agents — applied rules cited, boundaries explicit.
이 세 가지는 절대 하나의 점수로 합치지 않아요. 의견, 측정, 인기는 서로 다른 것이니까요.
이 서버는 아직 쉬운 말로 된 요약을 쓰지 못했어요. 아래는 레지스트리에서 읽어 온 사실이에요.
쓰고 있는 AI 앱을 고른 다음 설정을 복사하세요.
필요한 것
어떤 앱을 쓰세요?
위에서 앱을 고르세요. 기억해 두었다가 다음부터는 버튼에 “…에 설치”라고 표시해요.
Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config를 열고 claude_desktop_config.json에 이 내용을 붙여 넣으세요
{
"mcpServers": {
"srdcheck": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}터미널에서 이 명령어를 실행하세요
claude mcp add srdcheck -- uvx srdcheck프로젝트의 .cursor/mcp.json 또는 ~/.cursor/mcp.json에 붙여 넣으세요
{
"mcpServers": {
"srdcheck": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}브라우저가 앱을 열지 물어본 다음, 앱이 설정을 보여 주고 확인을 요청해요. 키 값은 비워 두니 직접 입력하세요.
프로젝트의 .vscode/mcp.json에 붙여 넣으세요
{
"servers": {
"srdcheck": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"srdcheck"
]
}
}
}브라우저가 앱을 열지 물어본 다음, 앱이 설정을 보여 주고 확인을 요청해요. 키 값은 비워 두니 직접 입력하세요.
이 서버는 내 컴퓨터에서 실행되는데, ChatGPT는 인터넷에 있는 서버에만 연결할 수 있어요. 다른 앱을 고르세요.
선택한 앱은 이 기기의 쿠키에만 저장돼요. 계정은 필요 없어요.
이 설정은 제작자의 레지스트리 정보로 만들었어요. README와 다르면 README를 따르세요.
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. 설치하면 AI 앱에 도구 목록이 나타나요.
누구나 볼 수 있는 정보를 점검했고, 코드는 읽지 않았어요. 해당하지 않는 항목은 개수에서 뺐어요. · 2026년 11월 6일 점검
레지스트리 이름이 GitHub 계정 chaoz23 기준으로 확인되었고, 이 계정이 저장소를 소유하고 있어요
아직 GitHub에서 이 저장소를 읽어 오지 않았어요
아직 GitHub에서 이 저장소를 읽어 오지 않았어요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행되는 서버라 인터넷 엔드포인트가 없어요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행되며, 대신 로컬 설정을 사용해요
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. 도구 목록은 인터넷 엔드포인트가 있는 서버에서만 읽을 수 있어요
레지스트리에서 이 카테고리의 활성 서버 전체와 비교했어요. 스타는 게시자가 저장소를 소유한 경우에만 세요.
해당하는 기본 점검 1개 중 1개를 통과했어요. 코드는 읽지 않았어요. 키나 토큰을 넣기 전에 서버가 어떤 권한을 요구하는지 확인하고, 꼭 필요한 권한만 있는 키를 쓰세요.
레지스트리에 필수 키가 나와 있지 않아요. 다만 처음 쓸 때 로그인을 요구하는 서버도 있어요.
내 컴퓨터에서 실행돼요. AI 앱이 필요할 때 실행하고, 데이터는 제작자의 서버를 거치지 않아요(서버 자체가 온라인 서비스를 호출하는 경우는 제외).
GitHub 저장소는 마지막으로 – 변경됐고, 최신 버전(0.8.0)은 3개월 전 레지스트리에 올라왔어요.
Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code처럼 MCP를 지원하는 앱에서 쓸 수 있어요. 내 컴퓨터에 Python (uv)도 있어야 해요.
같은 카테고리에는: Spec Driven Development, Remote Desktop Commander, Fomu MCP
같은 카테고리에서 다른 제작자가 만든 서버예요. 스타 순으로 정렬했어요.
카드 보는 법:★ GitHub 스타i세 기둥: 리뷰 · 점검 · 사용 정도i업데이트 = 최신 버전을 레지스트리에 공개한 날i
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.
Kenya government form guides: checklists, draft letters, eCitizen, Huduma, timelines. Sample data.
제작자의 저장소에서 쓰인 그대로 가져왔어요. PopNx MCP가 검토하거나 보증한 내용이 아니에요. HTML, 이미지, 스크립트는 제거했어요. 링크를 누르면 이 사이트를 벗어나요.
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
앞부분만 보여 드려요. 나머지는 저장소에서 읽어 보세요