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

72%

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

75%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.

A strong procedural skill body: fully sequenced, concrete, and validation-rich, with an exact output template. Remaining room is small — trimming Guardrails redundancy, adding a recovery path for archive-name collisions, and specifying the date-generation command.

Suggestions

Add an error-recovery loop to step 5: after a collision failure, instruct to prompt for an alternative name or date suffix and retry the mv rather than just failing.

Give the concrete date command (e.g. `date +%F`) for building the `YYYY-MM-DD-<change-name>` archive name.

Trim Guardrail entries that verbatim restate steps 1 and 4, keeping only the non-redundant guards.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations, exact commands), but the Guardrails section restates steps 1 and 4 ("Always prompt for change selection if not provided", "If delta specs exist, always run the sync assessment") — a minor trim candidate that keeps it below anchor 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable commands are given throughout (`openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`, `mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive`, the `mv` invocation), plus verbatim prompt options and an output template; minor gaps (no command for the YYYY-MM-DD date suffix, and the delta-spec comparison method is left unspecified) hold it at 'minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 6-step workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact status check, incomplete-task count, sync-state assessment, archive-collision check) and user confirmations via AskUserQuestion; validation is present so the destructive-operation cap does not apply, but the collision path fails with suggestions and no retry loop, which anchor 5's 'feedback loops for error recovery' would require.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the body is well-sectioned (Input, Steps, Output On Success, Guardrails) with sync detail appropriately delegated to the openspec-sync-specs skill; at ~115 lines with everything inline it is well-placed content rather than an ideal split-free overview, fitting anchor 4's 'good structure, minor organization gaps'.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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.

A solid description with explicit what/when structure and natural trigger terms in third-person voice. Its main weakness is specificity: it names only the headline action and leaves the skill's supporting behaviors (completion verification, spec syncing, dated archiving) undescribed.

Suggestions

Enumerate the concrete actions in the description, e.g. "Checks artifact and task completion, syncs delta specs to main specs, and moves the change to a dated archive" — this would lift specificity from 1-2 actions to several.

Add natural trigger variations such as "archive this change", "we're done implementing", or "move the change to the archive" to broaden trigger coverage.

Replace or supplement the internal jargon "the experimental workflow" with the product-identifying term (openspec changes) to sharpen distinctiveness from sibling skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Archive a completed change in the experimental workflow" names the domain and a single concrete action, but the description omits other concrete behaviors the skill performs (completion checks, delta-spec sync, dated archive move), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' anchor above.	3 / 5
Completeness	It has both a clear '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"); the when-clause is explicit but relies on a single trigger phrase rather than the multiple concrete triggers of anchor 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"archive", "finalize", "completed change", and "implementation is complete" are natural phrases a user would say, giving good keyword coverage; it is not anchor 5 because common synonyms/variations and the product-identifying term (openspec) are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Completed change in the experimental workflow" plus "after implementation is complete" carves a distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against adjacent workflow skills (e.g. spec-sync or change-creation); it is not fully anchor 5 because 'experimental workflow' is internal jargon that a sibling skill could also claim.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 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: ebce7f6

Reviewed: 5 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.