CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

openspec-verify-change

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

64

Quality

80%

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-verify-change/SKILL.md

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%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 strongly executable instruction-only skill: the multi-step verification workflow is clearly sequenced with validation decision logic and graceful degradation, and every step carries concrete commands or parsing markers. The only weaknesses are minor redundancy and a single-file layout that is somewhat long for SKILL.md conventions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is procedural throughout with no concept explanations Claude already knows, but the repeated "Recommendation:" phrasing templates and the "Verification Heuristics" section partially restating step guidance could be trimmed, matching the minor-trimming anchor at 4.

4 / 5

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready CLI commands (`openspec list --json`, `openspec status --change "<name>" --json`), concrete parsing markers (`- [ ]`/`- [x]`, `### Requirement:`, `#### Scenario:`), and a report template make the guidance mostly executable, though the code-search steps ("Search codebase for keywords related to the requirement") remain heuristic — minor gaps fitting 4, not 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly numbered steps with explicit no-input handling ("Do NOT guess or auto-select"), decision logic at every checkpoint (incomplete task → CRITICAL, divergence → WARNING), a Graceful Degradation branch for partial artifacts, and explicit final-assessment decision rules match the anchor for a clear sequence with validation steps, feedback logic, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single, well-organized SKILL.md with clear headers is easy to navigate, but at ~155 lines it exceeds the simple-skill (<50 lines) exception, and material like the report template and per-dimension issue examples could be split into reference files — matching good structure with minor organization gaps at 4.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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 concise, well-formed description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and a clear domain niche. Its main limitation is that it names only one action family (verify/validate) and offers a single trigger clause, leaving it short of the comprehensive coverage of the top anchors.

Suggestions

Expand the 'what' with the concrete verification actions the skill performs, e.g., "Check task completion, map requirements to implementation, verify scenario coverage, and audit design adherence".

Broaden the 'when' clause with natural trigger variations users would actually say, such as "Use when asked to check a change before archiving, verify task/checkbox completion, or confirm implementation matches specs".

Mention the openspec change workflow explicitly (e.g., "openspec changes") to reduce overlap risk with generic code-review or verification skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Verify implementation matches change artifacts" names the domain and a single action family (verify/validate) with three quality dimensions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicit 'what' ("Verify implementation matches change artifacts") and explicit 'when' ("Use when the user wants to validate... before archiving") are both present, but the 'when' is a single clause and the 'what' is terse, so it falls short of the 5 anchor's concrete trigger-phrase variations.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "verify", "validate", "implementation is complete", and "before archiving" are present, but common variations users might say ("check the change", "review tasks", "spec coverage") are missing, fitting good-but-incomplete keyword coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"change artifacts" and "before archiving" establish a distinct openspec niche, but openspec is never named and generic "verify implementation" phrasing risks overlap with general code-review skills, matching the minor-overlap anchor at 4.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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-verify-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.