What's the recommended workflow for updating generated files after modifying research.md?

[larevalos]

Question: What's the recommended workflow for updating generated files after modifying research.md?

Scenario:

1. I ran speckit to create my spec ✅ (looks great)
2. I ran speckit.plan to generate plan, research, contracts, etc.
3. I wasn't happy with some research findings and decisions in the generated research.md
4. I manually updated research.md with my preferred decisions

My Question:
What's the best approach to propagate my research changes to the other generated files (plan. md, contracts, quickstart, etc.)?

Options I'm considering:

Option A: Use GitHub Copilot (without spec-kit) to analyze and update all generated files

• ⚠️ Concern: Files might not follow spec-kit templates anymore, and I'd miss any logic in spec-kit's PowerShell scripts

Option B: Delete all generated files (except spec. md) and run speckit. plan again

• Provide my decisions explicitly in the prompt this time
• ⚠️ Question: How do I ensure it uses my updated research decisions?

Option C: Point Copilot to the spec-kit templates while updating

• ⚠️ Concern: Still might miss PowerShell script logic

What I need to know:

• What's the recommended workflow for iterating on decisions after initial generation?

[173787247]

Re: What's the recommended workflow for updating generated files after modifying research.md?

Lock the variables before assuming a logic bug:

1. Exact version (not “latest”) and OS
2. Minimal repro: clean profile/session, extra plugins off
3. First error block (missing from the post — add it if you can)

No replies yet — a minimal repro (version + one command + first error) will get you a maintainer faster than a long essay.
Repo: github/spec-kit. With those three, this is usually install vs config vs upstream. Searching the title keywords in Issues avoids duplicating a known thread.