Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A concise, highly actionable workflow with strong organization. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/verification feedback loop for a destructive spec-mutation operation, which limits workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Add an explicit post-apply validation/verification step (e.g., re-read the updated main spec to confirm ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED changes landed correctly) with a fix-and-retry loop before showing the summary.
For REMOVED Requirements, add a checkpoint that confirms the requirement existed before deletion to make the operation safer and idempotent.
Surface the idempotency check from the Guardrails into the step sequence as an explicit verification action rather than only a stated principle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (steps, format reference, output template, guardrails) earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete commands (`openspec list --json`), exact file paths, per-change-type handling rules, and a copy-paste output template, giving fully actionable guidance for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced with one stop-checkpoint, but this is a destructive/batch operation on main specs (including REMOVED requirements) with no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop or post-apply verification, which caps the score per the rubric's destructive-operation rule. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single well-organized SKILL.md with clearly labeled sections and no external bundle files; content is appropriately self-contained with no nested references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |