openspec-propose

Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.

1.04x

Quality

79%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

69%

1.04x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.github/skills/openspec-propose/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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-structured, actionable workflow with concrete CLI commands and explicit validation checkpoints for a batch artifact-generation process. It falls just short of top marks due to a duplicated constraint note, a thin error-recovery loop, and the absence of a concrete example artifact or reference structure.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated 'context/rules are constraints for you, not file content' note by stating it once in the Artifact Creation Guidelines section and referencing it from step 4a.

Add an explicit error-recovery feedback loop for the validation step, e.g. 'if a file is missing or status is not done, fix the issue and re-run openspec status before proceeding'.

Include one short concrete example of a generated artifact (e.g. a minimal tasks.md skeleton) so artifact authoring is copy-paste ready rather than fully delegated to the CLI template.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient with copy-paste commands and no padding about concepts Claude already knows, but the constraint that 'context' and 'rules' are for the agent and not for the file is stated twice (step 4a and the Artifact Creation Guidelines), a minor redundancy that keeps it below the lean anchor 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable CLI commands (openspec new, status, instructions) and specifies the JSON fields to parse, but the actual artifact-file authoring is delegated to the CLI's dynamic template output with no concrete example artifact shown, leaving a minor gap versus fully copy-paste-ready anchor 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-5 are clearly numbered and sequenced with validation checkpoints (re-run openspec status after each artifact, verify each file exists), but the error-recovery path when verification fails is thin and not fully spelled out, short of the explicit feedback-loop anchor 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (Input, Steps, Output, Artifact Creation Guidelines, Guardrails) and appropriately self-contained since detail comes from the CLI, but with no bundle files and ~100 lines of inline content there is no one-level-deep reference structure to reach anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 strong, explicitly answering both what the skill does and when to use it with concrete, natural trigger phrases. Its only weakness is mild generality in the trigger phrasing and actions framed as deliverables rather than enumerated concrete operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete deliverables ('proposal', 'design', 'specs', and 'tasks') generated in one step, but the actions are framed as outputs rather than fully enumerated concrete actions, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does ('Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step... design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation') and pairs it with an explicit 'Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build' trigger, matching the anchor for explicit what-and-when with concrete triggers.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ('describe what they want to build', 'proposal', 'design', 'specs', 'tasks', 'implementation'), giving good keyword coverage, but lacks synonyms and 'specs' leans slightly jargon-adjacent, short of the comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The openspec proposal/design/specs/tasks framing carves a distinct niche, but the trigger 'describe what they want to build' is fairly generic and could overlap with general planning or brainstorming skills, leaving minor conflict risk short of anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: arm/mlia
Path: .github/skills/openspec-propose/SKILL.md
Commit: e91557a

Reviewed: 5 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.