Content
70%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 strong operational skill: fully sequenced workflow with real commands, explicit user-confirmation and failure-recovery checkpoints for a destructive batch operation, and concrete output formats. Its weaknesses are redundancy between the step-9 example summary and the output templates, and inlined example/template content that belongs in a separate reference file.
Suggestions
De-duplicate the summary/output sections: keep the three canonical "Output On ..." templates and trim step 9 to a one-line pointer to them, saving ~30 lines.
Move the two Conflict Resolution Examples into a references/conflict-examples.md file (or trim to one), leaving SKILL.md as a lean overview.
Replace "Use the openspec-sync-specs approach" with a concrete inline description of the merge steps (or bundle that skill's relevant instructions), since it currently depends on a skill not present in this bundle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient with concrete steps, but step 9's sample summary duplicates the "Output On Success" and "Output On Partial Success" templates, and the conflict-resolution walkthroughs add length that could be tightened, matching the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete commands ("openspec list --json", "openspec status --change \"<name>\" --json", "mkdir -p openspec/changes/archive" + "mv ..."), exact parse patterns ("- [x]" vs "- [ ]", "### Requirement: <name>"), and full output templates make the guidance mostly executable; the gap is "Use the openspec-sync-specs approach", a pointer to a skill not bundled here and left unexplained. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear 9-step sequence with explicit validation checkpoints for a destructive batch operation: per-change status gathering (artifacts, tasks, delta specs), conflict detection and codebase-evidence resolution, a consolidated status table, user confirmation before archiving, per-change outcome tracking (success/failed/skipped), and failure recovery ("If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others") — matching the anchor with explicit validation and feedback loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned with headers and numbered steps, but no bundle files exist and ~90 lines of worked conflict-resolution examples and output templates are inlined inline rather than split into a references file, matching the 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor 3 rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |