Name: openspec-verify-change
Rating: 62.4 (1 reviews)
Author: dwmkerr

openspec-verify-change

Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.

Quality

72%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is openspec-verify-change in dwmkerr/git-workforest

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.

A well-structured, actionable verification workflow that leads with concrete CLI commands and explicit issue-priority logic. Its main ceiling is the absence of any fix-and-retry feedback loop and a couple of high-level search steps that could be made more concrete.

Suggestions

Make the codebase-search step concrete by suggesting a specific approach (e.g. ripgrep patterns derived from requirement keywords) instead of 'Search codebase for keywords'.

Add a short validate-and-retry note for the rare case where issues are fixed during the session and re-verification is wanted before archiving.

Consider extracting the report markdown template into a reference file to slim the body and give progressive disclosure a clearer win.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is directive and step-based with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; minor trim opportunities exist in the 'Verification Heuristics' and 'Graceful Degradation' sections, which read slightly verbose but remain useful, fitting the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	It supplies concrete executable commands (openspec list/status/instructions apply with --json) and specific recommendation templates ('Review <file>:<lines> against requirement X'); a few steps remain high-level ('Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement'), keeping it just below fully copy-paste-ready.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	An explicit 1-8 sequence with a clear final-assessment decision tree and graceful-degradation handling of missing artifacts; as the skill is read-only verification rather than destructive/batch mutation, the missing-validation cap does not apply, but there is no fix-and-retry loop to push it to 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized with clear section headers (Steps, Verification Heuristics, Graceful Degradation, Output Format) and no bundle files present requiring references; at ~150 lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception that would allow a 5, so it lands at 'good structure; minor organization gaps'.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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.

A compact, well-balanced description that pairs a clear what with an explicit use-when clause and a niche trigger ('before archiving'). It is held back from the top band mainly by abstract verbs in place of concrete operations and slightly thinner synonym coverage.

Suggestions

Replace abstract verbs with concrete operations, e.g. 'Check task checkboxes, search the codebase for each spec requirement, and compare implementation against design decisions.'

Add a couple of natural user phrasings/synonyms to the trigger clause, such as 'when the user asks whether a change is done or ready to archive'.

Tighten the 'what' so it names the report output, e.g. 'produces a CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION verification report'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('Verify implementation matches change artifacts') and enumerates verification dimensions ('complete, correct, and coherent'), but the actions ('verify', 'validate') are abstract verbs rather than concrete operations like the multiple-specific-actions anchor at 5.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (verify implementation matches change artifacts) and 'when' (Use when the user wants to validate... before archiving); the 'when' is explicit but the 'what' is terse rather than fully concrete, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Trigger phrases such as 'validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving' give good natural coverage ('before archiving', 'complete', 'coherent'), though a few common synonyms users might say ('check the change is done', 'ready to archive') are not captured.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (openspec change verification before archiving) with distinct triggers, with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills, fitting the 'mostly distinct' anchor rather than the fully unambiguous 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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: dwmkerr/livedown
Path: .claude/skills/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md
Commit: db0bd53

Reviewed: 4 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.