Content
76%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.
Highly actionable and well-structured content for a multi-step spec-merge operation, but the workflow omits an explicit post-merge verification step, which the rubric requires for destructive operations.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after applying changes (e.g., re-read each modified main spec to confirm the merge is coherent and well-formed before reporting success).
Include a brief verify/retry loop in the steps so failed or ambiguous merges prompt re-reading and correction rather than silently proceeding.
Tighten the Delta Spec Format Reference or move it to a reference file if the skill grows, to keep the main flow scannable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, with lean prose, concrete paths and commands, and no padding about basic concepts; the format-reference block earns its place with only minor instances that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete file paths, an executable command (openspec list --json), exact delta-section semantics, and the precise RENAMED FROM:/TO: format, covering the common cases copy-paste ready. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced with guardrails, but this destructive main-spec-overwrite operation lacks an explicit validation/verification checkpoint confirming the merged result is correct, which caps the score at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single self-contained file is well-sectioned (Steps, Format Reference, Key Principle, Output, Guardrails) with clear organization and no nested references, though it inlines material that a larger skill might split out. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |