sdd-spec
Write specifications with requirements and scenarios (delta specs for changes). Trigger: "spec", "requerimientos", "requirements", "especificaciones", "write specs", "sdd spec", "acceptance criteria", "/sdd:continue (when proposal exists but specs don't)".
86
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-structured skill description with excellent trigger term coverage including bilingual support and workflow-specific commands. The main weakness is the somewhat limited specificity of capabilities - it could benefit from listing more concrete actions beyond 'write specifications'. The explicit 'Trigger:' clause effectively communicates when Claude should select this skill.
Suggestions
Expand the capabilities section to list more specific actions like 'define acceptance criteria', 'document edge cases', 'structure user stories', or 'map dependencies between requirements'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (specifications) and some actions ('Write specifications with requirements and scenarios'), but lacks comprehensive detail about concrete actions like 'define acceptance criteria', 'document edge cases', or 'structure requirement hierarchies'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Explicitly answers both 'what' (write specifications with requirements and scenarios, delta specs for changes) and 'when' with a clear 'Trigger:' clause listing specific terms and conditions including the workflow-based trigger '/sdd:continue'. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including both English and Spanish variations ('spec', 'requerimientos', 'requirements', 'especificaciones', 'write specs', 'sdd spec', 'acceptance criteria'), plus a contextual trigger for workflow continuation. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused on specification writing with distinct triggers like 'sdd spec', 'acceptance criteria', and the specific '/sdd:continue' command that differentiate it from general documentation or requirements skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, highly actionable skill for writing specifications. Its strengths are the concrete templates, clear multi-step workflow with mode-specific instructions, and comprehensive error recovery guidance. The main weakness is verbosity - it explains concepts Claude already knows (RFC 2119 keywords) and includes lengthy inline templates that could be referenced externally.
Suggestions
Remove or significantly condense the RFC 2119 Keywords Quick Reference table - Claude already knows these standard keywords
Consider moving the detailed delta spec and full spec templates to a separate TEMPLATES.md file and referencing it, reducing the main skill's token footprint
The Priority Levels Reference table could be condensed to a single line per level or removed entirely since the meanings are self-evident
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundant content like the RFC 2119 quick reference table (Claude knows these) and verbose template examples that could be condensed. The priority levels table and error recovery sections add value but could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, copy-paste ready templates with exact markdown formats, specific commands for each persistence mode (mem_search, mem_save), and detailed step-by-step instructions. The delta spec format and full spec format are immediately executable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear 5-step sequence with explicit validation through the structured summary output. Each step has mode-specific instructions, error recovery table covers common failure scenarios, and the workflow includes checkpoints (identify domains → read existing → write → persist → return summary). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References external files appropriately (persistence-contract.md, engram-convention.md, openspec-convention.md) but the main content is quite long with inline templates that could potentially be split. The structure is good but the document is monolithic at ~200 lines. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.