Content
68%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable agent-workflow skill with exact paths, commands, format examples, and a defined output template. The main gap is the absence of a validation/verification step for what is a batch edit across multiple spec files, which the rubric caps at workflow clarity 3; there is also mild redundancy in how the delta-spec sections are documented three times.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint before the summary step (e.g., re-read each modified main spec to confirm the delta applied cleanly, or run an openspec validation command), turning the batch edit into a validate-and-recover loop.
Consolidate the delta-spec section documentation: the ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED sections are described in Step 2, re-explained in Step 3, and shown in the format reference — the Step 2 listing could be dropped in favor of the format example.
Include a short example of a main spec requirement block so the agent knows the target format it is merging into, not just the delta format it is reading.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes competence ('agent-driven operation', 'use your judgment to merge changes sensibly'), with concrete paths and commands instead of background explanation. Minor redundancy — the ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED sections are described in Step 2, re-explained in Step 3, and shown again in the format reference — keeps it below the 'every token earns its place' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance throughout: `openspec list --json`, exact paths (`openspec/changes/<name>/specs/<capability>/spec.md`, `openspec/specs/<capability>/spec.md`), a complete delta-spec format example, and an explicit output template. Minor gaps (no example of the main-spec requirement block format, RENAMED handling is thin) keep it below fully copy-paste-ready coverage. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-4 are clearly sequenced with guardrails, but this batch operation (editing multiple main spec files across capabilities) has no validation or verification step — no check of the merged result before the summary, and no error-recovery loop. Per the rubric, missing validation in batch operations caps workflow clarity at 3 even though the sequence itself is well-defined. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-organized with clearly labeled sections (Steps, Delta Spec Format Reference, Key Principle, Output On Success, Guardrails) and needs no external references at this size. At ~130 lines with the format reference inlined rather than split out, it has minor organization gaps that keep it below the 'clear overview with well-signaled references' top anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |