Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body offers a clear, well-gated workflow and clean progressive disclosure via one real reference file, but artifact-creation steps are abstract rather than executable and the 'What is covered' list partly duplicates later sections.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract step 4 ('Create or update proposal, design, specification deltas, and tasks') with the concrete OpenSpec commands or file paths a user would actually run.
Trim or merge the 'What is covered in this Skill?' bullet list, which largely restates the Constraints and Workflow sections.
Add a one-line example of an accepted input (e.g., an issue title and its sanitized summary) so the authority-recording step is unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is reasonably lean and mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the 'What is covered' bullet list largely restates the constraints and workflow that follow, adding token weight without new information. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete commands appear ('openspec --version', 'openspec init', 'openspec validate --all') but the artifact-creation steps stay abstract ('Create or update proposal, design, specification deltas, and tasks') without showing the actual commands or file layouts a user would run. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ('Run openspec --version' upfront, 'Run openspec validate --all' to close) and approval gates for change maps and archival. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference (references/042-planning-openspec.md, verified present in references/), and sections are well-organized for navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |