sequenceDiagram
    autonumber
    participant U as User / Advisor
    participant S as Stripe
    participant N as n8n
    participant C as EspoCRM (SSOT)
    participant Q as QuickBooks
    participant P as Postmark (Transactional Email)
    participant L as listmonk (Marketing)
    participant E as Amazon SES

    %% PURCHASE
    U->>S: Completes Checkout (Book/Course/App License)
    S-->>N: Sends "payment_intent.succeeded" Webhook

    %% n8n HANDLES RECORD CREATION
    N->>C: Create/Update Contact Record
    C-->>N: Return Contact ID
    N->>C: Log Purchase (Product + Price + Timestamp)
    N->>C: Update/Issue License (if course/app)

    %% ACCOUNTING
    N->>S: Fetch Invoice Data
    N->>Q: Push to QuickBooks (Customer + Invoice + Payment)

    %% TRANSACTIONAL EMAIL (RECEIPT/ACCESS)
    N->>P: Trigger “Send Receipt / Access Email”
    P-->>U: Email Delivered (Transactional)

    %% POSTMARK EVENTS INTO CRM
    P-->>N: Delivery/Open/Webhook Event
    N->>C: Update Email Status (Receipt delivered/opened)

    %% MARKETING EMAIL SYNC (TAG + SUBSCRIBER)
    N->>C: Apply Segmentation Tags (e.g., “Purchased Course A”)
    C-->>N: Updated Contact + Tags
    N->>L: Sync Subscriber Profile + Lists

    %% MARKETING CAMPAIGNS
    L->>E: Send future campaigns via SES
    E-->>L: Bounce/Complaint Webhooks
    L-->>N: Forward bounce/complaint
    N->>C: Update CRM (mark unsubscribed / bounced)

I strongly recommend Option 1: Steer all leveraging content to SDC.com

Here’s why:

Strategic Advantages

1. Clarity of Purpose

TS.com: Personal brand hub, professional credibility, “gateway” site
SDC.com: The destination for all substantive content, products, services
Clear mental model: “Learn about Talbot → Go to SMART DEBT for solutions”

2. SEO & Domain Authority

Concentrates all valuable content on SDC.com → builds single authoritative domain
Avoids splitting SEO value across two domains
All backlinks, social shares, content engagement benefit SDC.com
Google sees SDC.com as THE authority on debt leveraging, not split between two sites

3. Future-Proof Mission Alignment

You said: “100% of my future efforts will be $MART DEBT related”
Why maintain dual content systems for a declining focus area?
TS.com becomes a stable, rarely-changing professional site
All energy goes into evolving SDC.com

4. Simpler Technical Architecture

monorepo/
├── packages/
│   └── offerings/          # ALL offerings live here, SDC.com only
│       ├── products/
│       ├── services/
│       └── content/        # SMART DEBT Insights
│
├── sites/
│   ├── TalbotStevens/      # Simple, static gateway site
│   │   └── src/
│   │       └── pages/
│   │           ├── index.astro          # About Talbot
│   │           ├── expertise.astro      # Areas of expertise
│   │           ├── speaking.astro       # Speaking engagements
│   │           ├── media.astro          # Media appearances
│   │           └── leveraging.astro     # → Redirects to SDC.com
│   │
│   └── SmartDebtCoach/     # All substantive content lives here
│       └── src/
│           └── pages/
│               ├── products/
│               ├── services/
│               ├── insights/
│               └── about/          # Can include "Meet Talbot Stevens"

5. User Experience Benefits

Clear call-to-action: Every TS.com page can have prominent “Explore SMART DEBT Solutions →” CTAs
No confusion: Users don’t wonder “Should I buy this on TS.com or SDC.com?”
Seamless journey: “I like this Talbot guy → Oh, he has this whole SMART DEBT system → I’m in!“

6. Maintenance Burden

TS.com: Update rarely (bio updates, new speaking gig, media appearance)
SDC.com: All your creative energy here - new content, products, insights
No duplicate content management across sites
No “which site should this go on?” decisions

7. Analytics Clarity

All conversion tracking on SDC.com
Clear funnel: TS.com referrals → SDC.com engagement → conversions
Easy to measure: “How effective is TS.com as a referral source?“

8. Branding Evolution

Positions SMART DEBT as the “next evolution” of Talbot’s work
TS.com becomes historical/credibility site: “This is what I’ve done”
SDC.com becomes future/action site: “This is what we’re building together”

What TS.com Becomes

A professional gateway site with 5-7 pages:

Home: Who is Talbot Stevens
Expertise: Financial leverage, speaking, writing
Legacy Work: Past books/projects with “Now available at SMART DEBT Coach →”
Speaking: For event organizers
Media: Press kit, media appearances
Contact: How to reach Talbot
(Optional) Blog: Brief posts that link to full SMART DEBT Insights articles

Every page has a clear CTA: “Explore SMART DEBT Solutions →“

Implementation Strategy

Phase 1: TS.com Restructure

astro

---
// This page redirects ALL leveraging interest to SDC.com
---
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=https://smartdebtcoach.com">

<!-- Or a landing page: -->
<Layout title="Financial Leverage Solutions">
  <h1>My Leverage Work Continues at SMART DEBT Coach</h1>
  <p>For 20+ years, I've been teaching Canadians how to leverage their way to financial freedom...</p>
  <p>This mission continues with even more powerful tools and insights at:</p>
  <a href="https://smartdebtcoach.com" class="cta-button">
    Visit SMART DEBT Coach →
  </a>
</Layout>

Phase 2: Cross-Site CTAs

astro

<aside class="smart-debt-cta">
  <div class="cta-content">
    <img src="/smart-debt-logo.svg" alt="SMART DEBT Coach" />
    <h3>Ready to leverage your way to wealth?</h3>
    <p>Explore my comprehensive system for financial freedom.</p>
    <a href="https://smartdebtcoach.com">
      Visit SMART DEBT Coach →
    </a>
  </div>
</aside>

Insert this component on every TS.com page - consistent, non-intrusive CTA.

Phase 3: Legacy Content Strategy

astro

<Layout title="Books by Talbot Stevens">
  <h1>Books & Publications</h1>

  <Book
    title="Financial Freedom Without Sacrifice"
    year="2001"
    description="The original guide to leverage..."
    cta="This content is now part of the SMART DEBT system"
    ctaLink="https://smartdebtcoach.com/products/debt-mastery-course"
  />

  <Book
    title="Enough Bull"
    year="2008"
    cta="These insights expanded at SMART DEBT Coach"
    ctaLink="https://smartdebtcoach.com/insights"
  />
</Layout>
```

## Why NOT Option 2?

Option 2 (consuming from shared offerings) has these problems:

### 1. **Complexity You Don't Need**
- Building infrastructure for a use case that's declining
- Maintaining filters, configs, styling variants across two sites
- Ongoing "which site shows what?" decisions

### 2. **Duplicate Content Issues**
- Google may penalize duplicate content across domains
- Confusing for users: "I saw this on TS.com, now I'm seeing it on SDC.com?"
- Dilutes backlinks/social signals

### 3. **Maintenance Burden**
- Every offering update requires testing on BOTH sites
- Styling inconsistencies between sites
- "It works on SDC.com but breaks on TS.com" debugging

### 4. **Missed Opportunity**
- Doesn't leverage TS.com as a REFERRAL ENGINE
- Splits user attention instead of funneling it
- Weakens SDC.com's domain authority

## Recommended TS.com Structure
```
sites/TalbotStevens/
└── src/
    ├── pages/
    │   ├── index.astro                 # Home - About Talbot
    │   ├── expertise.astro             # Speaking, writing, media
    │   ├── books.astro                 # Legacy publications → SDC links
    │   ├── speaking.astro              # For event organizers
    │   ├── media.astro                 # Press kit, media appearances
    │   └── contact.astro               # Contact form
    │
    ├── components/
    │   ├── SmartDebtCTA.astro          # Reusable SDC.com CTA
    │   └── LegacyWork.astro            # Template for old books/courses
    │
    └── config/
        └── site.config.ts
            # No offerings config needed!
            # Simple static site focused on professional brand

Implementation Effort Comparison

Option 1 (Recommended):

Week 1: Restructure TS.com (5-7 simple pages)
Week 2: Add SmartDebtCTA component throughout
Week 3: Set up redirects for old product pages → SDC.com
Total: 3 weeks, done forever

Option 2 (Shared offerings):

Week 1-2: Build offerings package architecture
Week 3-4: Create filtering/styling system for both sites
Week 5-6: Migrate content, test on both sites
Week 7-8: Handle edge cases, duplicate content issues
Total: 8+ weeks, ongoing maintenance burden

My Verdict

Option 1 is objectively better for your situation:

✅ Simpler - No shared offerings infrastructure needed
✅ Faster - 3 weeks vs. 8+ weeks
✅ Cheaper - Less maintenance forever
✅ Better SEO - Concentrated domain authority
✅ Clearer UX - Obvious funnel for users
✅ Future-proof - Aligns with 100% SMART DEBT focus
✅ Leverage-optimized - TS.com becomes lead generation for SDC.com

Option 2 only makes sense if you planned to actively maintain dual offerings on both sites long-term. But you explicitly said that’s NOT the plan.

Recommendation: Proceed with Option 1, and I’ll update SiteConfigPlan-2.md accordingly.

Shall I proceed with the updated plan reflecting this approach?

Retry

Nice — I’ll do a deep, structured comparison of OpenSpec vs GitHub Spec Kit for spec-driven web site / app development (SDD). I’ll cover goals, workflows, tooling, integration with AI coding agents, strengths/weaknesses, fit-for-purpose, migration/operational notes, and a recommended adoption path you can try immediately. I looked up the current public resources for both projects and related write-ups to ground the analysis. (GitHub)

Short summary (TL;DR)

GitHub Spec Kit = opinionated, polished toolkit + CLI/templates aimed at integrating spec-driven workflows into existing developer pipelines and popular AI coding assistants. Great if you want batteries-included, good docs, and tight git/CLI ergonomics. (GitHub)
OpenSpec = lighter, more portable/spec-centric approach that focuses on locking intent/specs before implementation; often used where you want a minimal, flexible spec layer that works with different agents and custom workflows. Better if you want a small surface area and to design your own orchestration. (GitHub)

Which to pick depends on whether you value opinionated integration + templates (Spec Kit) or lightweight portability and low friction (OpenSpec). For many web/app projects, Spec Kit will accelerate ramp and governance; OpenSpec is preferable for experimentation, small teams, or embedding SDD into existing bespoke flows.

1) Purpose & philosophy

Spec Kit: Treats specs as executable/first-class artifacts and supplies a CLI, templates and prompt scaffolding so AI agents produce implementations from specs in a repeatable flow. Emphasis: structured process, developer ergonomics, and compatibility with many AI coding tools. (GitHub)
OpenSpec: Emphasizes a lightweight workflow that “locks intent before implementation” — making requirements deterministic and reviewable. Philosophy: minimal, reviewable spec documents that reduce AI hallucination by making requirements explicit. (GitHub)

2) Core workflow / lifecycle (how you actually work)

Both follow similar high-level SDD phases (spec → plan → tasks → implement), but differ in approach:

Spec Kit: opinionated 4-phase flow surfaced via CLI and templates: write spec, generate plans, break into tasks, implement. Strong support for versioning specs in git and for multiple agents/agents-of-choice. Designed to fit into developer toolchains (CLI, templates, prompts). (GitHub)
OpenSpec: lighter four-part workflow focused on drafting a change proposal, review & alignment (iterative spec refinement), AI implementation of clearly fixed tasks, then archiving/updating specs as living docs. Less prescriptive about the tools used. (GitHub)

Implication: If you want CLI-driven reproducibility and template scaffolding for teams, Spec Kit is better out of the box. If you want low friction and freedom to plug any agent or UI, OpenSpec wins.

3) Tooling & integration

Spec Kit
- Official toolkit, CLI (Specify CLI), templates, and ready prompts. Works with Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Cursor, etc. Good docs and explicit templates for web projects. Releases and template versions are actively published. (GitHub)
- Stronger ecosystem signals (blog posts, tutorials, 3rd-party walkthroughs) and attention from larger outlets — faster onboarding for teams. (The GitHub Blog)
OpenSpec
- Repo(s) vary — some OpenSpec implementations are minimal CLIs or web apps that provide spec editors and generation. More portable; integrates with any AI model you choose (less prescriptive). (GitHub)

Implication: Spec Kit = ready adapters + templates; OpenSpec = freedom & portability but more DIY work to integrate into your pipeline.

4) Maturity, community & maintenance

Spec Kit: Backed by GitHub community activity, blog documentation, and multiple tutorials—appears to be gaining traction rapidly. Active issue threads and template releases indicate ongoing maintenance. (GitHub)
OpenSpec: Multiple community forks and variants exist; some projects are experimental. Community conversation exists on forums/Cursor/reddit. Less centralized governance than Spec Kit. (Cursor - Community Forum)

Implication: If long-term tooling stability and ecosystem are priorities, Spec Kit looks safer. If you prefer experimentation and control, OpenSpec’s fragmented ecosystem is acceptable.

5) Strengths & Weaknesses (practical developer view)

GitHub Spec Kit — Strengths

Opinionated CLI/templates for quick onboarding. (GitHub)
Designed to live in git (specs alongside code) — strong traceability. (LogRocket Blog)
Good docs and examples for web apps (ecosystem articles and tutorials). (The GitHub Blog)

GitHub Spec Kit — Weaknesses

Somewhat prescriptive; may require adapting team habits to fit the toolkit. Issues reported about onboarding into existing projects (e.g., “how to apply to an already-developed repo”). (GitHub)

OpenSpec — Strengths

Lightweight and portable, low friction for teams who already have an AI setup. (GitHub)
Encourages locking intent early — reduces AI drift/hallucination risk.

OpenSpec — Weaknesses

Fewer standardized templates and less centralized tooling; you’ll often assemble integrations yourself. (GitHub)

6) Security, governance, and review

Both approaches improve governance versus ad-hoc prompts because specs are versioned and reviewable. Spec Kit’s CLI + templates make enforcement easier in CI/CD pipelines (e.g., spec linting or gating merges on approved specs). OpenSpec can do the same but requires custom hooks. (GitHub)

Recommendation for governance: Use git hooks + CI to require spec approval before merging feature branches; Spec Kit maps to this model more directly today.

7) Fit for spec-driven web site / app development (when to use which)

Use GitHub Spec Kit if:

You want a faster team ramp, templates for common web stacks (React/Vue/SSR), and CLI integration into developer workflows. Good for product teams and solo devs who want structure. (GitHub)

Use OpenSpec if:

You want a minimal, flexible spec artifact that you can plug into bespoke agent setups or internal tools. Good for experimentation, research prototypes, or when you must tightly control prompts and models. (GitHub)

8) Migration & practical adoption plan (concrete steps you can run today)

A practical, low-risk approach if you’re evaluating both on a real web project:

Pilot (2–4 hours):
- Create a tiny feature branch (e.g., “product listing page”) and try both flows side-by-side:
  - Use Spec Kit CLI to scaffold a spec and run through specify → plan → tasks → implement. Record time-to-first-working-output. (GitHub)
  - Use OpenSpec (or a minimal OpenSpec variant) to draft a spec and run your usual AI agent against it.
Measure outcomes: code quality, rework required, determinism (how often the agent matched the spec), ease of integrating into repo, and reviewer experience.
Governance: enforce spec review with a PR template and simple CI linting for spec presence. Spec Kit will make this low friction; OpenSpec will need a small script.
Decide & expand: pick the one that reduced iteration/rework most. If Spec Kit wins but you need custom flows, keep using Spec Kit templates while layering a small OpenSpec-style editor for non-engineers.

(This plan maps to observed community experiments and writeups that compare real-world flows for both tools.) (Hashrocket)

9) Risks & tradeoffs

Over-specification: overly rigid specs can slow experimentation. Keep specs at the right level of detail: acceptance criteria + critical constraints, not implementation minutiae. (Common theme in Spec-Driven posts.) (martinfowler.com)
Tooling lock-in: Spec Kit’s templates are powerful but introduce conventions — if you later change approaches you may need to refactor specs. OpenSpec is less committing but offers fewer safety rails. (GitHub)
AI agent variance: different agent capabilities affect outcomes; test with your target agents (Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Cursor) as implementations vary. Spec Kit explicitly supports multiple agents; OpenSpec expects you to wire your agent. (GitHub)

10) Final recommendation (for your use as a web/app dev & educator)

If you want reproducible, team-friendly SDD fast: start with GitHub Spec Kit. It provides CLI, templates, and community docs that accelerate adoption and governance. Good default for web site/app dev where repeatability matters. (GitHub)
If you want a lightweight experimentable spec layer or need to integrate SDD into a bespoke agent/system, use OpenSpec or an OpenSpec-inspired workflow — it’s more flexible and lower friction to iterate on. (GitHub)

If you want, I can immediately:

scaffold a one-page web app feature spec in Spec Kit format and a matching sample in OpenSpec format (side-by-side), including acceptance criteria and task breakdown — so you can run both with your AI agents and see which produces the least rework. Which stack should the sample use (React + Vite, Astro, or Next.js)?

No need to wait — tell me your preferred stack and I’ll produce both spec artifacts and a short test harness you can paste into your repo.

Yes — that changes things significantly.
Your current setup (solo dev, using Markdown specs and AI agents like Claude + Cursor) means you’re already halfway to a spec-driven workflow, but optimized for flexibility rather than team process.

Let’s analyze how that affects the OpenSpec vs GitHub Spec Kit choice — from a solo developer’s perspective who’s building websites/apps with agents.

🧭 1. Your Current Flow (Baseline)

From your description:

Claude creates a detailed .md plan/spec → agents (Cursor, etc.) implement tasks → tasks are checked off when done.

This is already:

✅ Spec-driven (Claude’s .md doc is the spec)
✅ Agent-managed (Cursor executes)
✅ Lightweight (you control the format and process)
✅ Reproducible enough for a solo workflow
❌ Missing some automation/structure for traceability, reusability, and modular specs

So you don’t need a full CLI or governance system — you need a lightweight enhancement of what’s already working.

⚖️ 2. What Changes for a Solo Developer

Aspect	Team Need (Spec Kit advantage)	Solo Dev Need (Your case)
Collaboration / Reviews	Strong need for governance and spec approval	Not needed; you’re both author and reviewer
Template enforcement	Helpful to keep team specs consistent	Overhead unless you want personal standardization
Traceability (git integration)	Needed for multi-person projects	Optional; you can still version `.md` specs in git
Ease of experimentation	Secondary	Primary — you need fast iteration and freedom
Customization of agents	Limited (Spec Kit defines structure)	Crucial — you already tune prompts and flows

Result:
👉 OpenSpec (or your own “OpenSpec-inspired .md spec pattern”) fits you better, at least for now.
Spec Kit’s structured flow and CLI are overkill for a solo dev unless you’re planning to scale into a team or publish reusable templates.

🧩 3. Recommended Spec-Driven System (Tailored for You)

You can build a hybrid workflow that merges OpenSpec’s flexibility with Spec Kit’s organizational clarity — but without the heavy tooling.

🔹 Step 1 — Define Your Personal Spec Schema

A single .md file per feature/module with:

# Spec: Feature Name
## 1. Purpose
Brief summary of what this feature accomplishes and why.

## 2. Requirements
- Core requirements
- Constraints (tech stack, performance, UX rules)

## 3. Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] Behavior 1
- [ ] Behavior 2

## 4. Tasks (for AI Agents)
- [ ] Implement component X
- [ ] Update test suite
- [ ] Verify SEO compliance

## 5. Notes for AI
Special instructions (style conventions, integration notes).

💡 This simple schema is functionally equivalent to a Spec Kit spec file — without the CLI.

🔹 Step 2 — Use Agents in “Spec Execution” Mode

You can turn your .md spec into a task board:

Paste a task block into Cursor or Claude Projects.
Run AI to implement.
Check off completed tasks directly in the .md.

Optionally:
Use a VS Code extension like Markdown Checklists or Todo Tree to visualize progress.

🔹 Step 3 — Add Spec Templates for Reuse

As your workflow stabilizes, add a folder:

/_specs/
   base-feature.md
   ui-component.md
   page-flow.md

These are templates (like Spec Kit’s templates), but portable and editable with any agent or editor.

🔹 Step 4 — Optional “Spec Manager” Script (10-line helper)

If you ever want light automation:

# Usage: ./spec.sh new feature-name
mkdir -p specs
cp templates/base-feature.md specs/$1.md
code specs/$1.md

That gives you 80% of Spec Kit’s ergonomics, without its dependency chain.

🚀 4. When Spec Kit Becomes Useful

You might consider GitHub Spec Kit later if you:

Start collaborating with others (writers, devs, or designers)
Want to generate structured prompts for specific AI models automatically
Need to standardize specs for public/open-source projects
Want CI enforcement (e.g., each PR must reference an approved spec)

But for a solo, agent-assisted developer, it’s usually:

🧠 “Better to have an ultra-light, human-readable .md spec pattern than a full-blown spec toolkit.”

🧩 5. Summary Table — Solo Dev Perspective

Feature	OpenSpec (or your custom variant)	GitHub Spec Kit
Setup complexity	⭐ Very low	⚙️ Moderate (CLI, templates)
Agent compatibility	⭐ Universal	✅ Good (with some adapters)
Markdown-friendly	⭐ Native	✅ Supported but templated
Customization	⭐⭐⭐ Total control	⚠️ Limited by templates
Governance tools	❌ Manual	✅ Built-in via git/CLI
Ideal for	Solo devs, prototypes, agent workflows	Teams, multi-agent pipelines

🧠 6. Recommendation for You (Ta)

Given:

You’re a solo developer,
Already using Claude + Cursor + .md plans, and
Value simplicity, flexibility, and maintainability,

Your best next step is:

✅ Keep your Markdown-based spec system,
evolve it into a personal “OpenSpec-style” format (structured sections),
and optionally layer light automation for spec creation and progress tracking.

Then, only once you begin collaborating with others or building reusable open frameworks, evaluate GitHub Spec Kit as a next-tier workflow standardizer.

If you want, I can draft:

A “Personal Spec-Driven Development Template.md”, optimized for your Claude/Cursor agent workflows, and
An optional spec-runner script to help you manage and track spec progress.

Would you like me to create that next?