openspec-archive-change

Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow. Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete.

Quality

80%

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 ./.claude/skills/openspec-archive-change/SKILL.md

Quality

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 highly actionable and well-sequenced with strong validation checkpoints for a destructive archive operation, with only minor redundancy in the Guardrails section that could be tightened for token efficiency.

Suggestions

Trim the Guardrails section: 'Always prompt for change selection', 'Use artifact graph', 'Don't block archive on warnings', and 'If sync is requested, use openspec-sync-specs' all restate Steps 1-4 and can be cut or consolidated.

Tighten explanatory lines such as 'Parse the JSON to understand:' into direct field references to reduce token overhead.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and uses real commands, but the Guardrails section restates guidance already covered in Steps 1-4 (change selection, artifact status, not blocking on warnings, sync approach), which could be tightened, fitting the level-2 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the every-token-earns-its-place level 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	It gives fully executable commands ("openspec list --json", "openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive", "mv openspec/changes/<name> openspec/changes/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>") and concrete tool invocations with specific parameters, matching the copy-paste-ready level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Six numbered steps form a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact status, task completion, existing-target check) and confirm-before-proceed feedback loops for the destructive move, satisfying the level-3 anchor; validation is present, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files are present and none are needed; the skill is a single self-contained file organized into clear Input/Steps/Output/Guardrails sections with no nested references, matching the well-organized level-3 anchor for a self-contained skill.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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 answers both what and when with a clear niche trigger, but it describes only a single archiving action and uses a limited set of trigger terms, capping specificity and trigger-term quality at the mid level.

Suggestions

Expand the description with a few concrete sub-actions (e.g. 'checks artifact and task completion, optionally syncs delta specs, and moves the change to a dated archive directory') to lift specificity beyond a single 'archive' verb.

Broaden trigger terms to natural variations users might say, such as 'wrap up', 'finish', or 'I'm done with this change'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Archive a completed change" and "finalize and archive a change" name the domain and a core action, but only a single action (archiving) is conveyed rather than multiple specific concrete actions, matching the level-2 anchor rather than the multi-action level-3 example.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what ("Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow") and an explicit when ("Use when the user wants to finalize and archive a change after implementation is complete"), satisfying the level-3 anchor that requires both what and an explicit trigger.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The terms "finalize", "archive", and "change" are reasonably natural, but coverage is thin and omits common variations a user might say (e.g. "wrap up", "finish", "I'm done with this change"), fitting the level-2 anchor of some relevant keywords missing common variations.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The narrow framing ("experimental workflow", "change after implementation is complete") carves a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, matching the level-3 distinct-niche anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: KunAgent/Kun
Path: .claude/skills/openspec-archive-change/SKILL.md
Commit: 2f578f6

Reviewed: about 15 hours 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.