CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

openspec-bulk-archive-change

Archive multiple completed changes at once. Use when archiving several parallel changes.

56

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/openspec-bulk-archive-change/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 thorough, well-sequenced batch workflow with genuinely strong operational detail: exact CLI commands, file paths, conflict-resolution heuristics, confirmation gates, and per-change failure handling. Its weaknesses are redundancy (three near-duplicate output templates plus a guardrails section restating inline rules) and a fully monolithic layout where conflict examples and output formats could be split into reference files.

Suggestions

Collapse the duplicated output templates (step 9 summary, "Output On Success", "Output On Partial Success") into one parameterized template, and trim Guardrails items that literally repeat inline step text.

Move the two conflict-resolution examples and the output-format specifications into a references/ file (e.g. references/conflict-examples.md) and link to them, keeping SKILL.md as the overview plus steps.

Inline a short, concrete recipe for the spec-sync merge in step 8a (or point to a specific script/section) instead of deferring vaguely to "the openspec-sync-specs approach".

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly concrete instruction, but there is real duplication beyond minor: step 9's summary template, "Output On Success", and "Output On Partial Success" repeat nearly identical output formats, and the Guardrails section restates inline rules ("Always prompt for selection, never auto-select" repeats step 2's "Do NOT auto-select"). This fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; it is not 2 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is largely executable: exact commands (`openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`), exact paths and parsing patterns (`openspec/changes/<name>/tasks.md`, `### Requirement: <name>`), and concrete mv commands with a date format. It stops short of 5 because step 8a defers to "the openspec-sync-specs approach (agent-driven intelligent merge)" with no inline detail, and step 5b's "Search the codebase for implementation evidence" is open-ended.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Nine well-sequenced steps with explicit checkpoints for a batch/destructive operation: pre-flight batch validation (step 3), conflict detection before any mutation (steps 4-5), user confirmation before destructive moves (steps 2 and 7), per-change outcome tracking (step 8c), and failure containment ("If archive target exists, fail that change but continue with others"). Validation is present, so the batch-operation cap of 3 does not apply; it is not 5 because there is no post-move verification and the sync step leans on an external approach.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~250-line file with no bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and no external references at all. Section headers make it navigable, but content that would fit a reference file — the two full conflict-resolution examples (Example 1/Example 2) and the repeated output templates — is inlined, matching 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'. It is not 2 because the file is well-sectioned and self-contained rather than a monolithic wall.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 serviceable two-sentence description with the correct structure (what + explicit 'Use when' clause) and third-person voice, but it undersells the skill. It mentions only the archive action — not conflict detection, spec syncing, or validation — and offers a single trigger phrasing.

Suggestions

Enumerate the distinctive capabilities to raise specificity, e.g. "Archives multiple completed openspec changes at once, validating task/artifact status and resolving spec conflicts by checking the codebase."

Broaden trigger coverage with natural synonyms users would say: "Use when archiving, batch-archiving, or cleaning up multiple finished/parallel changes."

Name the tool/domain (openspec changes) in the description to reduce overlap risk with generic file-archiving requests.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Archive multiple completed changes at once" names the domain (completed changes) and one concrete action (batch archive), matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It omits key capabilities the skill actually has (spec-conflict detection, spec syncing), which keeps it below 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: what ("Archive multiple completed changes at once") and when ("Use when archiving several parallel changes"), so it clears the missing-'when' cap of 3. It falls short of 5 because the trigger clause is a single narrow phrase echoing the 'what' rather than a list of concrete trigger situations.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "archive", "completed changes", and "archiving several parallel changes" are natural, but coverage stops at the archive-family; common variations such as "batch", "bulk", or "clean up finished changes" are missing. Fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than the good-coverage anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The framing around "completed changes" and "parallel changes" is workflow-specific and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not a 5 because the word "archive" without naming openspec/spec changes leaves minor overlap risk with generic file-archiving requests.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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/openspec-flow

Path

.claude/skills/openspec-bulk-archive-change/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.