Specs generated by /specify are hard to read for non-technical reviewers (BAs/QA) — is this a common experience?

[AbgaryanNver]

We're adopting spec-kit in our SDLC across multiple projects, and I'd like to hear how others handle the readability of generated specs.

Our workflow: Business Analysts create specs with the /specify command, and the spec becomes the source of truth in Jira — replacing the traditional Jira requirement. Both the BA and QA then review the spec before development starts.

The problem: Our BAs report that the specs generated by /specify are hard to read and not human-friendly. The structure works well for feeding into /plan and implementation, but as a document that non-technical stakeholders review and sign off on, it feels awkward — , too rigid/template-driven in others.

Questions for the community:

1. Has anyone else run into this when using specs as review artifacts for BAs/QA rather than just as AI input?
2. Have you customized the spec template ort more readable for humans? If so, how?
3. Is improving human readability of /specify output on the roadmap, or is the spec intentionally optimized for agent consumption rather than human review?

Any experience or workarounds would be much appreciated. Thanks!