Content
85%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 well-structured, actionable multi-step workflow with strong validation checkpoints and executable commands. Its main weakness is mild redundancy between the numbered steps and the Guardrails section.
Suggestions
Trim the Guardrails section to rules not already stated in the numbered steps (e.g. drop 'Always prompt for change selection' and 'Use artifact graph for completion checking' which restate steps 1-2), keeping only net-new guardrails.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and free of concept-explanation padding, but the 'Guardrails' section restates rules already expressed in the numbered steps (e.g. prompt-for-selection, use of the status artifact graph), adding redundancy rather than new value, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete, executable commands throughout — `openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, `mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive`, and the `mv` invocation — plus concrete tool guidance (AskUserQuestion), matching the fully-executable anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact completion, task completion) and confirm-before-proceed feedback loops for a destructive move operation, matching the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed; the single self-contained file is organized into well-labeled sections (Input, Steps, Output, Guardrails) with a clearly signaled cross-reference to the openspec-sync-specs skill, satisfying the well-organized single-file case for progressive disclosure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |