openspec-new-change

Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow. Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification with a structured step-by-step approach.

Quality

68%

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-new-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.

The body is a lean, actionable, well-sequenced instruction set with executable CLI commands and explicit stop/status checkpoints. The main gaps are mild redundancy, a placeholder requiring interpretation, and no explicit error-recovery loop.

Suggestions

Add a brief error-recovery step for command failures (e.g., what to do if 'openspec new change' errors on an invalid name or existing change) to push workflow_clarity toward 5.

Tighten the redundant 'IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed' note in step 1, which restates the prior instruction, to improve conciseness.

Clarify the first-artifact step by giving an example resolution of '<first-artifact-id>' from the status output, reducing interpretation needed for actionability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient with brief imperatives and executable commands, assuming Claude's competence; minor redundancy like the 'IMPORTANT: Do NOT proceed' reminder could be trimmed, keeping it below a 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI commands (openspec new change, openspec status, openspec instructions) covering the workflow, but the '<first-artifact-id>' placeholder and schema-dependent first artifact require interpretation, leaving minor gaps versus a 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints (ask if no input, show status, STOP and wait for user direction), though it lacks an explicit error-recovery feedback loop for command failures.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections (Input, Steps, Output, Guardrails) with no need for external references; it sits just over the simple-skill line, so it does not reach the score-5 exception.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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 covers both what the skill does and when to use it with an explicit trigger clause, and is clearly tied to the OpenSpec niche. It is held back by somewhat generic trigger terms and only modest specificity of concrete actions.

Suggestions

Add OpenSpec-specific trigger terms users would naturally say (e.g., 'openspec change', 'start a change', 'scaffold a change') to improve trigger_term_quality.

List more concrete distinct actions (e.g., 'scaffolds the change directory, selects a workflow schema, shows artifact status') to raise specificity toward the score-4/5 anchors.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Start a new OpenSpec change', 'create a new feature, fix, or modification') and a step-by-step approach, but does not list several distinct concrete actions like the score-4 anchor requires.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow') and 'when' ('Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification'), though the 'when' could be more specific.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes some natural phrases ('new feature, fix, or modification') but lacks synonyms and OpenSpec-specific trigger terms, matching the score-3 anchor of 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The OpenSpec artifact-workflow framing gives it a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic feature-creation skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: PBH-BTN/PeerBanHelper
Path: .claude/skills/openspec-new-change/SKILL.md
Commit: f8e9b1b

Reviewed: 3 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.