Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, highly actionable, and well-structured with concrete paths, commands, and an output template. Its only notable gap is the absence of an explicit validation/checkpoint loop for the spec-overwriting edits.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after applying edits (e.g., re-read the modified main spec to confirm the intended requirements/scenarios are present and no unrelated content was lost) before showing the success summary.
Include a brief verify-and-retry loop for ambiguous RENAMED/MODIFIED matches (e.g., if a FROM requirement is not found, surface that to the user rather than silently skipping).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, explaining no basic concepts and giving only operative instructions; even the format-reference block is short and directly useful, fitting the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides concrete file paths, a real command (openspec list --json), a named tool (AskUserQuestion), explicit per-operation rules, and a copy-paste output template, matching the score-3 anchor for fully executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-step sequence with sub-steps is clear, but spec-overwriting operations lack an explicit validate-then-retry checkpoint before declaring success, capping at the score-2 anchor per the feedback-loops guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It is a single, self-contained SKILL.md with well-labeled sections and no external references, fitting the score-3 anchor for a well-organized single-file skill with no need for bundle files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |