planning-workflows

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

Quality

61%

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

72%

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, well-organized orchestrator that cleanly splits detail into verified reference files. Its main weakness is that actionable and validation detail live entirely in the references, leaving the body's actionability and workflow checkpoints somewhat implicit.

Suggestions

Inline the one or two most decisive actionability specifics (e.g., the spec artifact paths and the phase-gate order) so the body is actionable without requiring a reference read.

Make the validation checkpoint explicit in the body, e.g. 'Confirm with the user before advancing past each spec phase; only proceed once requirements, design, and tasks are signed off.'

Add a short inline pointer to the exact command template section in source-commands.md so Claude jumps straight to the right template.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is under 40 lines, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.	3 / 3
Actionability	Guidance is concrete in intent ('Read the matching command template', 'keep artifacts in specs/<name>/...') but delegates the executable detail to the reference files rather than providing directly actionable steps in the body, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 3-step execution sequence with a confirmation gate is present ('do not skip required confirmations when running spec mode'), but detailed validation checkpoints are deferred to the references rather than stated in the body, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview pointing to two real, well-signaled one-level-deep references (references/source-commands.md and references/command-catalog.md, both verified to exist), matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 identifies the skill's niche and source, but it stops short of enumerating concrete actions and omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance. It reads as a domain label rather than a complete, trigger-rich description.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user wants to plan a feature with a full spec (requirements/design/tasks) or skip planning for a small, well-scoped change.'

Enumerate concrete actions such as 'produces requirements.md, design.md, and tasks.md under specs/<name>/, or executes directly for no-spec tasks.'

Include natural user phrasings like 'plan with spec', 'skip the spec', or 'break down requirements' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('spec / no-spec planning workflows') and the phase artifacts ('requirements, design, tasks'), but does not enumerate multiple concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill does but lacks any 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2 ('has what, but when is missing or only implied').	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Terms like 'spec', 'no-spec', 'planning workflows', and 'slash commands' are relevant, but it misses common natural variations users might say ('plan a feature', 'skip planning', 'requirements gathering'), fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The 'spec / no-spec' framing is fairly niche, but the broad term 'planning workflows' could overlap with general planning or task-management skills, matching the 'somewhat specific but could still overlap' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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: 3dcff8b

Reviewed: 1 day 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.