CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

arn-code-feature-spec-teams

This skill should be used when the user says "feature spec teams", "arness code feature spec teams", "team feature spec", "debate this feature", "collaborative feature spec", "spec with agent teams", "multi-agent feature spec", "feature spec debate", or wants to develop a feature idea through structured debate between multiple specialist agents (architects, UX experts, and security specialists) before writing the specification. Uses Claude Code's experimental Agent Teams feature. Requires Agent Teams to be enabled. For standard single-agent feature spec, use arn-code-feature-spec instead.

74

Quality

92%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A highly actionable, well-sequenced orchestration skill with strong validation checkpoints and good progressive disclosure via the bundled debate-protocol reference. Its only weakness is verbosity — the matrix and spawn-prompt detail could be trimmed for token efficiency.

Suggestions

Tighten the Step 3 team-composition matrix: the eight rows repeat '1 architect + 1 UX specialist' patterns that could be expressed as a compact rule (e.g., 'base = architects by scope; add UX when UI; add security when sensitive') to cut roughly half the table.

Compress the Step 4 per-teammate spawn-prompt bullets: the architect/UX/security blocks share a common skeleton (feature idea, pattern docs, role instructions, greenfield add-ons) that could be stated once with a short per-role delta rather than three near-parallel lists.

Move the long greenfield-context bullet groups (Steps 1b, 4, 6) into the existing greenfield-loading reference or a dedicated greenfield section, since they only activate conditionally and inflate the always-loaded body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~310-line body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the team-composition matrix and the per-teammate spawn-prompt bullet lists are granular enough that several sections could be tightened without losing clarity.

2 / 3

Actionability

Gives concrete, executable guidance throughout: 'echo $CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS', the settings.json env snippet, regex 'F-\d{3}', 'mkdir -p <specs-dir>/', and exact AskUserQuestion option text — copy-paste ready for an instruction skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps are explicitly sequenced (1, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5b, 6) with validation checkpoints — Agent Teams availability check, 'Proceed?' confirmation, debate convergence criteria, >4-round escalation, and a dedicated Error Handling section with fallbacks.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The heavy debate rules are offloaded to a real one-level-deep reference ('Read ... references/debate-protocol.md', which exists in the bundle) with an explicit 'Do not duplicate them' instruction, and the body is organized into clear Prerequisites/Workflow/Error Handling sections.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%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.

A strong, third-person description that explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to invoke it, with a rich set of natural trigger phrases and explicit disambiguation from the single-agent variant. Every dimension lands at the top of the scale.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists concrete actions and actors: 'develop a feature idea through structured debate between multiple specialist agents (architects, UX experts, and security specialists) before writing the specification', naming the debate mechanism, the three specialist roles, and the spec output.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (develop a feature idea through structured debate between specialists, then synthesize a spec) and when ('when the user says ... or wants to develop a feature idea through structured debate'), with explicit trigger guidance.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Provides broad coverage of natural phrasings a user would say — 'feature spec teams', 'team feature spec', 'debate this feature', 'collaborative feature spec', 'multi-agent feature spec', 'feature spec debate' — with several common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'teams'/'agent teams'/'debate' triggers carve a clear niche, and it explicitly disambiguates from the sibling skill: 'For standard single-agent feature spec, use arn-code-feature-spec instead.'

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
AppsVortex/arness
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.