intent-driven-development

Turn ambiguous or high-impact product and engineering changes into scoped, verifiable acceptance criteria before or alongside implementation. Use when a user asks to clarify a feature, define acceptance criteria, de-risk a security/data/migration/integration change, prepare implementation requirements for another agent, or make a complex request testable. Do not trigger for trivial edits, straightforward fixes, active debugging, code review, or implementation requests whose acceptance conditions are already clear unless the user explicitly invokes this skill.

Quality

94%

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

Quality

Content

88%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 thorough, highly actionable instruction skill with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checkpoints, and concrete templates/examples. Its main weakness is length and internal redundancy rather than any lack of guidance.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'product/business constraints cannot be inferred from code' rule to a single authoritative statement and cross-reference it, instead of restating it in Operating Rules, Workflow step 2, and the template.

Move the full Output Template and Pass/Fail Examples into separate reference files (e.g. references/output-template.md, references/pass-fail-examples.md) and link to them from the body to reduce the inline footprint.

Trim overlap between 'How It Works' and 'Workflow' — either merge them or have How It Works give only the conceptual summary and Workflow hold the executable sequence.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the "product/business constraints cannot be inferred from code" rule is restated three times (Operating Rules #2, Workflow step 2, and the Output Template context section) and the "How It Works" list overlaps the Workflow section.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides a fully concrete AC format (Scenario/Action/Expected/Must not/Verification/Priority), a complete copy-paste Output Template, a coverage table, pass/fail examples, and explicit checklists — everything needed to execute without inventing structure.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly numbered Workflow (steps 1–6) with validation checkpoints (Pass/Fail Rubric, Quality Check), explicit confirmation gates for risky operations, and a revision feedback loop (mark [revised], increment, re-present) for criteria that fail mid-implementation.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clearly headed sections and self-contained with no nested references, but the 360-line body inlines the full Output Template and Pass/Fail Examples that could reasonably live in one-level-deep reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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 exemplary: concrete capabilities, natural trigger language, explicit what/when guidance, and negative triggers that sharply bound activation. Third-person imperative voice is used correctly throughout.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "Turn ... into scoped, verifiable acceptance criteria", "clarify a feature", "define acceptance criteria", "de-risk a security/data/migration/integration change", "prepare implementation requirements" — with comprehensive coverage and no vague filler.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (turn ambiguous/high-impact changes into scoped, verifiable acceptance criteria) and when (a concrete "Use when..." clause), and adds negative triggers ("Do not trigger for...") for disambiguation.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user phrases like "clarify a feature", "define acceptance criteria", "de-risk a ... change", "make a complex request testable" are exactly what a user would say, with synonyms and concrete risk categories covered.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (acceptance-criteria/intent-driven specification) with distinct triggers, and the explicit "Do not trigger" exclusion list minimizes overlap with debugging, code review, or trivial-edit skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 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: affaan-m/ECC
Path: skills/intent-driven-development/SKILL.md
Commit: 06c5e11

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.