CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

planning-workflows

Spec and no-spec planning workflows derived from local slash commands (requirements, design, tasks).

56

Quality

64%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/planning-workflows/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 content is a compact, well-structured router that delegates detailed templates to reference files and provides concrete decision criteria and artifact paths. Its main weakness is mild redundancy between sections and a slightly indirect reference hop between the two bundle files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-organized with only minor instances of over-explanation (the opening line restates the title, and 'When to use' and 'Decision rules' overlap slightly), fitting the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than a fully tight 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete decision criteria (new/complex/cross-module/risky -> spec; small/low-risk/well-scoped -> no-spec) and concrete paths (references/source-commands.md, specs/<name>/...), with the minor gap that the actual phase templates are delegated to the reference file.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear meta-sequence is given (decide -> read template -> follow phase gates -> place artifacts) with an explicit checkpoint ('do not skip required confirmations when running spec mode'); this is a planning skill with no destructive/batch ops so the 3-cap does not apply, and it falls just short of 5 because detailed checkpoints live in the reference.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references ('Source of truth: references/source-commands.md', 'Command mapping: See references/command-catalog.md'), both verified as real files; kept at 4 because command-catalog.md itself forwards to source-commands.md, a minor organization redundancy short of clean 5-level navigation.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 clearly states the skill's purpose and niche but omits an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, which caps completeness and weakens trigger guidance. It is reasonably distinct from generic planning skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete user triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user wants a requirements/design/tasks spec before implementation, or wants to skip spec for small scoped work').

Expand trigger-term coverage with natural phrasings and synonyms a user would actually say (e.g., 'write a spec', 'plan before coding', 'skip planning', 'just implement').

Tighten specificity by naming the concrete outputs the workflow produces (requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md under specs/<name>/) rather than only the abstract phases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("spec and no-spec planning workflows") and concrete artifacts ("requirements, design, tasks"), but stops short of listing several specific actions, matching the anchor that names the domain with 1-2 concrete actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (spec/no-spec planning workflows producing requirements/design/tasks), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, so per the judging guideline completeness is capped at 3 for a clear 'what' with missing 'when'.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords ("spec", "no-spec", "planning", "requirements, design, tasks") are present, but coverage lacks common synonyms or variations a user might naturally say, fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The spec-vs-no-spec planning niche with a slash-command origin is a fairly distinct trigger space with only minor overlap risk against generic planning skills, matching the 'mostly distinct' anchor; not a 5 because 'planning workflows' alone is still somewhat broad.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-Toolkit
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.