<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>MCP on Chris Worth</title><link>https://chrisworth.dev/skill-tag/mcp/</link><description>Recent content in MCP on Chris Worth</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 18:30:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://chrisworth.dev/skill-tag/mcp/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>wSpec: Spec-Driven Development Workflow for Claude Code</title><link>https://chrisworth.dev/projects/wspec/</link><pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 18:30:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://chrisworth.dev/projects/wspec/</guid><description>&lt;p>I&amp;rsquo;d used both GitHub&amp;rsquo;s Spec Kit and Fission-AI&amp;rsquo;s OpenSpec, and each one got part of the workflow right and left another part missing. Spec Kit&amp;rsquo;s artifact vocabulary was solid but nothing enforced it once code-writing started; OpenSpec&amp;rsquo;s change lifecycle was clean but had the same gap. I saw what both had and where both were lacking, and built my own: &lt;strong>wSpec&lt;/strong>, a spec-driven workflow for Claude Code with the enforcement layer neither one shipped.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>