CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

planning-workflows

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

Quality

75%

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

78%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 well-structured orchestrator skill: lean body, concrete decision rules, and verified one-level-deep references that hold the real command templates. The main improvement opportunities are folding the duplicate source pointer into the execution steps and stating the mode-to-command mapping explicitly.

Suggestions

Merge the 'Source of truth' section into Execution rule 1 to remove the duplicate reference to references/source-commands.md.

Replace 'Read the matching command template' with the explicit mapping (e.g. spec mode -> the spec command template, no-spec mode -> the no_spec template) instead of deferring it to the catalog.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint before task execution (e.g. verify requirements/design/tasks documents exist and are user-confirmed before proceeding) rather than relying on 'required confirmations' inside the referenced templates.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and directive with no concept explanations ('Prefer spec when work is new/complex, cross-module, risky', 'never `git add` it'), but minor trims are possible: the intro sentence 'This skill standardizes how to choose and execute planning modes' adds little beyond the title, and the 'Source of truth' pointer duplicates Execution rule 1's reference to the same file.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout — explicit decision criteria, real file paths ('references/source-commands.md', 'specs/<name>/...'), and specific repo rules ('never git add it (it is gitignored)'). 'Read the matching command template' defers the mode-to-command mapping to the catalog rather than stating it, a minor gap.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence runs from decision rules to three numbered execution steps, and the confirmation checkpoint is explicitly enforced ('do not skip required confirmations when running spec mode'). This is not a destructive/batch operation so no cap applies; the remaining gap is that phase-gate validation details are delegated to the referenced templates rather than stated.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references: both 'references/source-commands.md' and 'references/command-catalog.md' exist, the catalog maps commands to source-commands.md, and source-commands.md holds the actual templates with no deeper nesting. Content is appropriately split between overview and references.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

61%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 is specific about the domain and deliverables and is clearly third-person, but it omits any 'use when' trigger guidance and never states actions in verb form. Adding an explicit trigger clause and concrete action verbs would lift completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks for a spec-driven workflow, wants to skip spec for small tasks, or asks how to decide between spec and no-spec planning.'

Lead with action verbs instead of a noun phrase, e.g. 'Runs spec and no-spec planning workflows via local slash commands, producing requirements, design, and tasks documents.'

Include natural user variations such as 'write a spec' or 'skip the spec' to strengthen trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Spec and no-spec planning workflows' plus '(requirements, design, tasks)' names the domain, both modes, and concrete deliverables, which is more informative than anchor 2's 'names the domain but actions are minimal'. However, it is a noun phrase with no action verbs — what the skill actually does (choose and run a planning mode) is never stated — so it does not reach anchor 4's 'lists several specific actions'.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is present (planning workflows in spec and no-spec modes producing requirements/design/tasks), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description — the 'when' lives only in the body. Per the judging guidelines this caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say: 'spec', 'planning', 'requirements', 'design', 'tasks'. A few natural variations are missing ('write a spec', 'skip the spec', 'task breakdown'), and 'no-spec' is repo jargon rather than a phrase users say naturally, keeping it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Derived from local slash commands' plus the spec/no-spec framing carves a fairly distinct niche that anchors the skill to this repo's commands. Minor overlap risk remains with generic planning or task-breakdown skills, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-Toolkit

Path

skills/planning-workflows/SKILL.md

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.