CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

openspec-propose

Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.

64

Quality

75%

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 ./benchmarks/problem2/scenario3/.agents/skills/openspec-propose/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is openspec-propose in jabrena/plinth

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.

A well-structured, actionable multi-step workflow with concrete CLI commands and real validation checkpoints. Its chief weakness is redundancy between the Steps, Guidelines, and Guardrails sections, and a slightly abstract artifact-writing step.

Suggestions

Collapse the overlapping guidance in 'Artifact Creation Guidelines' and 'Guardrails' into the Steps where it first appears to remove repetition and tighten conciseness.

Add one short filled-in example of an artifact file (e.g. a sample tasks.md) so the writing step is concrete rather than 'fill in the template'.

Consider moving the openspec instructions JSON schema breakdown and store-selection details into a reference file to improve progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but the Artifact Creation Guidelines and Guardrails sections repeat guidance already given in Steps (re-reading dependencies, using template as structure, not copying context/rules), which could be tightened; not a 4 because the redundancy is noticeable rather than minor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-pasteable commands ('openspec new change', 'openspec status --change --json', 'openspec instructions <artifact-id> --change --json') with JSON field guidance; not a 5 because the actual artifact-writing step ('Create the artifact file using template as the structure') stays somewhat abstract without a filled example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 5-step process with explicit checkpoints (re-run status until applyRequires done, verify each file exists before proceeding, ask the user when context is unclear); not a 5 because verification checks file existence rather than content validity, a minor gap.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into logical sections (Store selection, Input, Steps, Output, Guidelines, Guardrails) with no nested references and a navigable structure; not a 5 because at ~100 lines the instructions-JSON schema details and store-selection material could arguably live in one-level-deep reference files, and the simple-skill exception does not apply.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 strong description that clearly answers both what it does and when to use it, with concrete artifacts and a natural trigger clause. Its main weakness is not naming the underlying OpenSpec tool, which slightly blurs its distinctiveness and omits some natural synonyms.

Suggestions

Name the tool explicitly (e.g. 'Propose an OpenSpec change...') to sharpen distinctiveness and reduce overlap with generic planning skills.

Add a couple of natural trigger synonyms users say (e.g. 'spec out', 'draft an RFC', 'plan a feature') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names concrete artifacts ('design, specs, and tasks') and a concrete action ('Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step'), listing several specific outputs with only minor coverage gaps; not a 5 because the action verbs stay generic ('propose', 'generate') rather than enumerating many distinct operations.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states what ('Propose a new change with all artifacts generated... complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation') and when ('Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build') with concrete trigger phrasing, matching the score-5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say ('describe what they want to build', 'complete proposal', 'design, specs, and tasks') with good coverage; not a 5 because common synonyms/extensions (e.g. 'RFC', 'spec out', 'feature request') are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The proposal/design/specs/tasks artifact set carves a recognizable niche and is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; not a 5 because the description never names OpenSpec, leaving minor overlap risk with general planning or spec-drafting skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jabrena/plinth
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.