Content
81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable workflow with strong validation checkpoints appropriate to a destructive archive operation. Minor improvements are possible around date-generation mechanics and tightening repeated confirmation phrasing.
Suggestions
Add a concrete command or snippet for deriving the archive date (e.g. `date +%F`) so the target name generation is fully executable.
Specify how to compare delta specs against main specs (command or method) rather than leaving 'Determine what changes would be applied' abstract.
Factor the repeated 'Display warning + AskUserQuestion to confirm' pattern into a single stated convention to reduce verbosity across steps 2-4.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and command-driven with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, though the repeated "Display warning… Use AskUserQuestion tool to confirm" phrasing across steps could be tightened slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable commands and named tools (openspec list/status --json, mkdir -p, mv, AskUserQuestion, Task subagent) cover the common cases, with minor gaps such as how to derive the current date and how to perform the delta-spec comparison. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (artifact status, task completion, delta sync state, target-exists check) and confirm-before-proceed feedback loops, satisfying the validation requirement for this destructive move operation. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single self-contained file is well sectioned (Input, Steps, Output, Guardrails) with a clearly signaled one-level reference to the openspec-sync-specs skill and no nested references, though no separate bundle files are used to split detail. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |