CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

spec-interview

进行深入访谈以收集需求并编写详细的规格说明书 (spec)

60

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills/spec-interview/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is a concise, well-structured instruction skill that gives concrete interview guidance and a clear workflow with confirmation checkpoints. It would benefit only slightly from explicit feedback-loop handling and a copy-paste example of an interview round.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient across ~50 lines with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (核心原则, 问题领域, 访谈流程) earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance is present — '2-4 questions per round via AskUserQuestion', specific probing categories, and an output path docs/specs/<feature-name>.md — but it stays at the level of direction rather than copy-paste-ready examples, so minor gaps remain.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence is given with checkpoints ('定期总结以确认理解', '与用户确认并编写'), but explicit error-recovery/feedback loops are not spelled out, leaving minor validation gaps.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (概述/核心原则/问题领域/访谈流程/输出/调用) and no need for external bundle files, matching the rubric's simple-skill exception for a top score.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description clearly states the skill's purpose but omits an explicit trigger ('Use when...') clause, capping completeness, and offers only moderate keyword coverage. It is a clear, third-person statement that is mostly distinct from sibling skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when gathering requirements for a new feature, system, or idea before writing a spec.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users would say (需求收集, 写规格, design discussion, requirements) to improve keyword coverage.

Mention 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g., probe edge cases, summarize and confirm understanding) to lift specificity above 3.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (访谈) and two concrete actions (收集需求, 编写规格说明书), but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of probing depth, synthesis, or confirmation steps.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (深入访谈收集需求并编写规格) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords (访谈, 需求, 规格/spec) but misses common variations and synonyms a user might naturally say such as '需求收集', '写文档', or 'design discussion'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The spec-interview niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, though it could marginally overlap with general requirements-gathering or design-discussion skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
4thfever/cultivation-world-simulator
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.