docs: document Articles IV, V & VI as project-customizable in spec-driven.md

[Copilot]

spec-driven.md claimed "nine articles" but only documented six — Articles IV, V, and VI were silently missing between Article III and Articles VII & VIII.

Changes

• spec-driven.md — adds #### Articles IV, V & VI: Project-Specific Standards between Article III and Articles VII & VIII:
  • Identifies each article's typical domain: IV → integration concerns, V → operational concerns, VI → lifecycle concerns
  • Notes these are reserved for project-specific standards that teams define to suit their needs
  • Describes the articles in generic terms without referencing template internals or other files

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 3

[mnriem]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

[Copilot]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

Applied all three review comments in d4ec0b7:

1. Removed the "fixed in the Spec Kit framework" framing — the section now describes IV–VI as the typical customization focus areas while noting that /speckit.constitution lets teams define fewer or more principles than the template.
2. Collapsed Article V and VI into a single bullet that correctly reflects the template grouping them under one [PRINCIPLE_5_NAME] / [PRINCIPLE_5_DESCRIPTION] slot by default, with a note that teams can expand to separate articles via /speckit.constitution.
3. Reworded the /speckit.analyze sentence to say it validates all spec/plan artifacts against every principle in the project constitution, rather than implying article-number-specific logic.

[Copilot]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

Applied both in 32a90dd:

1. Removed the [PRINCIPLE_5_*] example hint entirely — the "(V. Observability, VI. Versioning & Breaking Changes, VII. Simplicity)" text was causing the inconsistency by implying Article VII belongs to the customizable slot. The bullet now simply describes the slot as grouping Articles V & VI concerns by default, without anchoring to a specific example that conflicts with the separately-documented Articles VII & VIII section.
2. Updated the /speckit.analyze sentence to say "spec, plan, and task artifacts" to accurately reflect all three core artifacts the command covers.

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 2

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 2

[mnriem]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

[Copilot]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

Applied both in 5c64bbf:

1. Broadened the intro phrase to "domain, operational, and lifecycle needs" so it covers all three article types (IV, V, and VI).
2. Fixed the grammar to "however fits their project best".

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 2

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 2

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 1

[Copilot]

Copilot's findings

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 1