CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

talk-martinelli-spec-driven-development

Use when the user asks about Simon Martinelli's talk "Lessons from Spec-driven Development" — including questions about the AI Unified Process, system use cases as specs (vs user stories), self-contained systems vs microservices, skills/MCP servers/guardrails, AI-assisted ERP modernization, drift management, how architecture style impacts AI coding agents, or applying his spec-driven approach to current work.

62

Quality

74%

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 ./talk-martinelli-spec-driven-development/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Scale 1-3

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

This is a well-crafted skill for a knowledge-retrieval task grounded in a specific talk transcript. Its strengths are strong actionability (concrete steps for each use case) and clear workflow sequencing with appropriate guardrails (verbatim quoting rules, speaker attribution caveats, garbled text handling). Its main weakness is moderate redundancy — the 'read outline.md → read transcript.md → quote verbatim → cite lines' pattern is restated in nearly every section and could be consolidated into a shared preamble to save tokens.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated 'read outline.md → read transcript.md → quote verbatim → cite line numbers' pattern into a single shared procedure referenced by each task section, reducing token count by ~30%.

Confirm that the referenced bundle files (outline.md, transcript.md, quotes.md) are actually included in the bundle, or note their expected location explicitly if they are user-provided at runtime.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some redundancy — the grounding rules and the per-task instructions repeat the same 'read outline.md, read transcript.md, quote verbatim' pattern multiple times. Some consolidation would save tokens without losing clarity.

2 / 3

Actionability

Each use case (factual Q&A, audit, draft artifact, apply framework, teach concept) has concrete, numbered step-by-step instructions with specific file references, specific dimensions to check, and clear output expectations (e.g., the system use case template with Actor, Preconditions, Main success scenario, etc.).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit ordering (e.g., the audit walks through 8 dimensions in order with a verdict per dimension and a summary). The grounding rules establish a clear lookup-then-quote-then-cite pipeline. The artifact drafting workflow includes a validation step (marking additions as '[not from talk]').

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill references outline.md, transcript.md, and quotes.md as supporting files with clear navigation signals, which is good progressive disclosure design. However, no bundle files were provided, so we cannot verify these references exist. The SKILL.md itself is moderately long and some repeated patterns across sections could be factored out, but the section structure is clear.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

72%Scale 1-3

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 excels at trigger term coverage and distinctiveness, providing a rich set of specific topics that would reliably activate this skill when relevant. Its main weakness is the complete absence of what the skill actually does — it only specifies when to use it, not what actions or outputs it provides. Adding a brief 'what it does' clause would significantly improve it.

Suggestions

Add a leading clause describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Answers questions about and summarizes key insights from Simon Martinelli's talk...' before the 'Use when' clause.

Specify the concrete actions the skill performs, such as 'retrieves talk content, explains concepts, provides examples from the presentation' to clarify capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a specific domain (Simon Martinelli's talk on spec-driven development) and lists several topic areas like 'AI Unified Process', 'system use cases as specs', 'self-contained systems vs microservices', etc. However, it doesn't describe concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'summarizes key points', 'answers questions about', 'provides references to'). It focuses on trigger topics rather than what the skill actually does.

2 / 3

Completeness

The 'when' is explicitly and thoroughly addressed with a 'Use when...' clause and extensive trigger scenarios. However, the 'what' is essentially missing — the description never states what the skill actually does (e.g., answers questions, provides summaries, retrieves talk content). It only specifies when to activate, not what actions it performs.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms a user might mention: 'Simon Martinelli', 'Lessons from Spec-driven Development', 'AI Unified Process', 'system use cases', 'user stories', 'self-contained systems', 'microservices', 'MCP servers', 'guardrails', 'ERP modernization', 'drift management', 'AI coding agents', 'spec-driven approach'. These are highly specific and natural terms users would use.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

This is extremely distinctive — it's scoped to a specific person's specific talk with highly unique trigger terms like 'Simon Martinelli', 'Lessons from Spec-driven Development', and 'AI Unified Process'. There is virtually no risk of conflicting with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
AINativeDev/aidevcon-2026-ldn
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.