sdd-spec

Write SDD delta specs with requirements and scenarios. Trigger: orchestrator launches spec work for a change.

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./internal/assets/skills/sdd-spec/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The content is a well-sequenced, actionable spec-writing workflow with concrete templates and guardrails, but it carries some over-explanation and has no bundle files to offload reference material. Progressive disclosure is the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Move the RFC 2119 keyword table into a bundled reference file (or trim it to a one-line reminder) to reduce tokens on concepts Claude already knows.

Add a brief validation checkpoint in Step 5/6 (e.g., verify every requirement has at least one testable scenario and the artifact is under the 650-word budget before returning) to introduce a feedback loop.

Split the delta-spec and full-spec format templates into a bundled reference (e.g., references/spec-templates.md) and link to it, improving progressive disclosure toward a 4.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly actionable instruction, but the RFC 2119 quick-reference table explains a concept Claude already knows and the MODIFIED-requirement warning is repeated in both Step 4 and Rules.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete delta-spec and full-spec templates with explicit file paths, Given/When/Then scenario structure, and a return-summary table give mostly copy-paste-ready guidance with only placeholder gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with mode-specific branches, MANDATORY callouts, and a coverage self-check in the return summary, though there is no explicit validate-then-fix feedback loop on the produced spec.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist; the skill is a single ~240-line file with inline content (RFC 2119 table, full templates) that could be split out, and its only references are to external project-shared files rather than a bundled reference structure.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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 cleanly states what the skill does and gives an explicit trigger, but the trigger is delegate/orchestrator-oriented and the action list is narrow. It is distinct within the SDD family yet light on natural user keywords.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g., "define ADDED/MODIFIED/REMOVED/RENAMED requirements") to lift specificity toward a 4 or 5.

Broaden the trigger with natural phrases users orchestrators say, such as "spec the change", "write requirements", or "break the proposal into scenarios", including synonyms of "spec".

Make the "when" clause more explicit about the entry condition (e.g., "Use when a proposal exists and requirements/scenarios for the change are needed").

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Write SDD delta specs with requirements and scenarios" names the domain and the core action plus its artifacts, but offers only one main action rather than several specific ones.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states both what ("Write SDD delta specs with requirements and scenarios") and when ("Trigger: orchestrator launches spec work for a change"), but the trigger is narrow and orchestrator-focused rather than a rich user-facing phrase.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like "SDD delta specs", "requirements", "scenarios", "spec work", and "change" are relevant but jargon-heavy and lack common synonyms or variations a user might naturally say.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"SDD delta specs" carves a clear niche distinct from sibling skills, though the shared SDD/change framing creates minor overlap with sdd-design, sdd-tasks, and sdd-archive.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 2 missing, 2 deeper-than-1-level	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai
Path: internal/assets/skills/sdd-spec/SKILL.md
Commit: 71cf25f

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.