A drawing set is already a specification. I tested how far that goes

HK Landscape Sheets is a personal project, laid out as one A1 sheet with four drawings:

• LP-01 Site Analysis. Draw the site, place neighbouring towers with their heights, and the shadows follow the date and time. Solstice sun hours, sun and shade zones, Hong Kong Observatory prevailing winds.
• LP-02 Planting Plan. Plan, section, view and plant schedule are one dataset. Place a tree and the schedule and section update. A rule checker marks issues in red revision clouds.
• LP-03 and LP-04. Ten Hong Kong tree species grown year by year, and an annotated study of a kapok tree.

What I brought was not code. It was knowing what each sheet must show, how the drawings cross-reference, and what a reviewer would mark up. The agent did the programming. That is what I mean by "software is dead": when the brief is precise, the person who knows the work can have a tool built around the way they work.

The limits, plainly:
・I am not a landscape architect. It follows what landscape architects generally consider, as published online.
・Version 1, not official guidance, not professional advice.
・Some data is unverified (mature spread, shrub sizes, flowering months) and the app flags it.
・The checker applies rules of thumb, not regulations.
・Shadows come from simple building boxes, with no trees or terrain.

Landscape architects: what would you correct first, and what would a tool like this need before it helped on a real scheme?

The live tool and the open source code are in the first comment.