spec-writing

Execute this skill should be used when the user asks about "writing specs", "specs.md format", "how to write specifications", "sprint requirements", "testing configuration", "scope definition", or needs guidance on creating effective sprint specifications for agentic development. Use when appropriate context detected. Trigger with relevant phrases based on skill purpose.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

65%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable with concrete instructions and copy-paste spec templates, and the workflow is clearly sequenced with a useful error-handling checklist. Weaknesses are mild duplication of testing guidance already in the reference file and incomplete progressive disclosure — examples.md and errors.md are bundled but never referenced while their content is partly inlined.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. a step 'Review the spec for conflicting or ambiguous requirements; each requirement should have a single interpretation' before finalizing specs.md.

Link the examples.md and errors.md bundle files from the Resources section (or replace the inline Examples with a pointer to examples.md) so all bundle files are signaled and content is not duplicated inline.

Tighten instructions 3–5 by deferring the per-setting 'when to use' detail to testing-configuration.md, keeping only the setting names and a one-line purpose in the body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean and free of concept-explaining fluff, but instructions 3–5 duplicate the "when to use each" guidance already in testing-configuration.md and the inline Examples repeat testing options, so it could be tightened by deferring detail to the reference.	2 / 3
Actionability	Instructions give concrete, specific steps (exact file path, exact QA/UI Testing values and their effects) and the Examples are copy-paste-ready spec templates with real endpoints and scope items, matching the fully-executable anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The seven numbered steps form a clear sequence and the Error Handling table acts as a troubleshooting checklist, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint in the main authoring flow (e.g., 'review the spec for conflicts before saving'), leaving checkpoints implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	testing-configuration.md is well-signaled and one level deep, but examples.md and errors.md bundle files are never linked from the body, and inline Examples duplicate content that lives in examples.md — content that should be separate is inline and navigation to the other bundles is missing.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

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 clearly identifies a distinct niche and supplies explicit, natural trigger phrases covering both what and when. Its main weakness is specificity — it leans on triggers more than enumerating concrete capabilities, and phrasing like "Execute this skill should be used" and "Use when appropriate context detected" is awkward filler.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ("creating effective sprint specifications") and a few actions (scope definition, testing configuration) but is mostly a list of triggers rather than multiple concrete actions, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It answers both what ("guidance on creating effective sprint specifications for agentic development") and when (explicit "should be used when the user asks about..." triggers plus a "Use when..." clause), satisfying the both-what-and-when anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It provides good coverage of natural phrases a user would say — "writing specs", "specs.md format", "how to write specifications", "sprint requirements", "testing configuration", "scope definition" — including several variations of the core intent.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The triggers center on a clear niche (sprint specs / specs.md format) unlikely to collide with unrelated skills, though "testing configuration" and "scope definition" are slightly more generic; overall the niche is distinct.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills
Commit: 2cafb23

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.