CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

kiro-validate-gap

Analyze implementation gap between requirements and existing codebase

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./tools/cc-sdd/templates/agents/codex-skills/skills/kiro-validate-gap/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable process document with strong error handling and a verification checkpoint, though it carries duplicated guidance between the Execution Steps and the Tool Guidance/Constraints sections. Its single external reference is clearly signaled but unverifiable within the provided bundle.

Suggestions

Merge the 'Tool Guidance' section and the 'Context Discipline' constraint into the Execution Steps to remove duplicated guidance and tighten token usage.

Promote the 'Parallel Research' subsection out of the awkward position between numbered steps 2 and 3 (e.g., make it step 3 or an unnumbered note after the steps).

Inline the key checkpoints of the gap-analysis framework (or confirm the rules/gap-analysis.md path ships with the skill) so the reference resolves and critical guidance survives if the file is missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with no padding or explanations of known concepts, but the standalone 'Tool Guidance' section and the 'Context Discipline' constraint substantially duplicate the Execution Steps and could be trimmed or merged.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill: concrete file paths ({{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.json, requirements.md, research.md), exact fallback commands, and explicit output format requirements; minor gaps come from deferring the analysis framework and approach evaluation to an external rules file.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step sequence includes an explicit write-verification checkpoint ("Verify the file was written by reading it back"), careful append-vs-overwrite handling, and an error-scenario section with recovery behavior; the awkwardly embedded 'Parallel Research' heading between steps 2 and 3 and the lack of validate-fix-retry loops keep it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("Read rules/gap-analysis.md from this skill's directory") and well-organized sections, but the referenced rules file is not present in the bundle and some process detail is retained inline, so navigation cannot be fully verified.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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.

The description states a clear, reasonably specific purpose but is a single clause with no trigger guidance and no enumeration of concrete capabilities. Adding a 'Use when...' clause and 1-2 more concrete actions would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when starting design/implementation for a feature with approved requirements, or when asked what's missing from the current codebase."

Enumerate 1-2 concrete actions beyond 'analyze', such as 'identify missing capabilities, integration points, and viable implementation approaches (extend/new/hybrid)'.

Include natural synonyms users would say, such as "gap analysis" or "brownfield assessment", to improve trigger term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Analyze implementation gap between requirements and existing codebase" names a concrete domain but offers only one generic action ("Analyze"), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions rather than a list of several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

The description gives a clear 'what' but contains no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "implementation gap", "requirements", and "existing codebase" are relevant, but common variations users would naturally say (e.g., "gap analysis", "what's missing", "brownfield") are absent.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The requirements-vs-codebase gap analysis niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against code-review or architecture-analysis skills, though the absence of distinct trigger phrases keeps it below a 5.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

gotalab/cc-sdd

Path

tools/cc-sdd/templates/agents/codex-skills/skills/kiro-validate-gap/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.