planning-workflows

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

Quality

57%

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 ./skills/planning-workflows/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 well-organized, concise overview that appropriately delegates detail to real reference files, with a usable decision and execution structure. Its main weakness is that actionable and validation detail lives in the references rather than inline, leaving the workflow somewhat abstract.

Suggestions

Inline one or two concrete checkpoints from the referenced templates (e.g. 'confirm requirements before drafting design.md') so the workflow is executable without opening the reference.

Label the 'Command mapping' pointer with what it contains (e.g. '/spec and /no_spec intents and sources') instead of a bare 'See references/command-catalog.md'.

Remove the redundancy between 'Source of truth' and 'Command mapping' — both point at source-commands.md indirectly; consolidate or clarify which file owns which content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean (~35 lines) and assumes Claude's competence without over-explaining known concepts; the only minor waste is light redundancy between the 'Source of truth' pointer and the near-empty 'Command mapping' section.	4 / 5
Actionability	It gives a numbered execution sequence and points to specific files (references/source-commands.md, specs/<name>/...), but the concrete executable substance is offloaded to references and the inline rules are somewhat abstract ('keep scope tight', 'do not skip required confirmations').	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered sequence exists and confirmations are mentioned, but validation checkpoints are implicit and delegated to the referenced command templates rather than stated inline; the destructive/batch cap does not apply since this is a planning-routing skill.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview with one-level-deep references to real bundle files (source-commands.md, command-catalog.md) and content is appropriately split; minor gaps are the redundant cross-reference and the under-labeled 'Command mapping' pointer.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 is a concise, third-person statement of what the skill covers, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and leads with provenance ('derived from local slash commands') rather than concrete actions. It is adequate but would benefit from explicit trigger phrases and stronger action verbs.

Suggestions

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

Lead with concrete actions instead of provenance — replace 'planning workflows derived from local slash commands' with verbs like 'chooses and runs spec or no-spec planning workflows'.

Include common trigger synonyms users actually say ('spec this out', 'skip the spec', 'just do this small fix') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and three concrete artifacts ('requirements, design, tasks') but the verbs are weak ('planning workflows derived from local slash commands') — it describes what the skill is rather than concrete actions it performs, so it does not reach the 'several specific actions' bar.	3 / 5
Completeness	There is a clear 'what' (spec/no-spec planning workflows from local slash commands) but no 'when'/'Use when...' clause at all, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'spec', 'no-spec', 'requirements', 'design', and 'tasks' are reasonably natural, but coverage lacks common variations/synonyms and there is no explicit trigger phrasing to anchor them.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Spec and no-spec planning workflows derived from local slash commands' carves a fairly specific niche with only minor overlap risk against general planning skills; not quite minimal conflict risk because 'planning' itself is broad.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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: TencentCloudBase/CloudBase-AI-Toolkit
Path: skills/planning-workflows/SKILL.md
Commit: ef9f182

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.