CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

matthew-a-carr/review-spec

Cross-artefact consistency and quality review of an approved or draft SPEC. Use when the user says "review SPEC-NNN," before `implement-spec` runs, or by `draft-spec` / `revise-spec` before opening or updating a spec PR. Checks the SPEC against the constitution, ADRs, parent epic (if any), and tech debt register. Read-only — produces a structured report, never edits files.

78

1.42x
Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

80%

1.42x

Average score across 1 eval scenario

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong, well-structured review skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The six-pass framework with explicit severity classifications and a fixed report template gives Claude unambiguous guidance. Minor weaknesses are slight verbosity in some passes (particularly Pass 4's extended deliberation-detection guidance) and the lack of bundle files to offload reference material, though the single-file approach is defensible given the skill's read-only nature.

Suggestions

Consider extracting the Pass 4 ambiguity trigger phrases and rewrite rules into a separate reference file (e.g., AMBIGUITY-PATTERNS.md) to keep the main skill leaner and more scannable.

Tighten the 'Do not' section — the read-only constraint is already stated in the intro and 'When to use' sections, so the repetition could be reduced to a single concise reminder.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is thorough and mostly earns its length given the complexity of a six-pass review process, but some sections are slightly verbose — e.g., the extended explanation of mid-deliberation prose in Pass 4 with the rewrite rule and trigger phrases could be tightened. The 'Do not' section repeats constraints already stated in the intro. Overall reasonably efficient but not maximally lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

Highly actionable: each pass has concrete criteria with specific examples (e.g., 'money modelled as float → violates pence-as-integer rule and ADR 038'), exact file paths to read, severity classifications, and a verbatim report template with fixed verdict options. Claude knows exactly what to do at every step.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced: load context (5 numbered steps) → run six named passes with explicit severity rules → produce a structured report with deterministic verdict logic. Validation is built into the process (each pass is itself a validation checkpoint), and the verdict rules provide clear decision criteria including escalation paths (Blocked → revise-spec or grill-me).

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single monolithic file with no bundle files. While the content is well-organized with clear section headers, the Pass 4 ambiguity section in particular contains substantial inline detail (trigger phrases, rewrite rules, examples) that could be split into a reference file. For a skill of this length (~180 lines of substantive content), some progressive disclosure into supporting files would improve scannability.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is an excellent skill description that clearly defines its purpose, triggers, and boundaries. It specifies concrete actions (checking against constitution, ADRs, parent epic, tech debt register), provides explicit trigger conditions (user command, pre-implementation, pre-PR), and distinguishes itself from related skills by emphasizing its read-only nature. The description is concise yet comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions: 'Cross-artefact consistency and quality review', 'Checks the SPEC against the constitution, ADRs, parent epic, tech debt register', 'produces a structured report, never edits files'. These are specific, actionable capabilities.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ('Cross-artefact consistency and quality review... Checks the SPEC against the constitution, ADRs, parent epic, tech debt register... produces a structured report') and when ('Use when the user says "review SPEC-NNN," before implement-spec runs, or by draft-spec / revise-spec before opening or updating a spec PR').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger terms users would say: 'review SPEC-NNN', 'implement-spec', 'draft-spec', 'revise-spec', 'spec PR'. Also references related artifacts like 'constitution', 'ADRs', 'epic', 'tech debt register' which provide good keyword coverage.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: reviewing SPECs for cross-artefact consistency. The read-only constraint, specific artifact references (constitution, ADRs, tech debt register), and explicit trigger patterns ('review SPEC-NNN') make it very unlikely to conflict with other skills like draft-spec or implement-spec.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents