rfc-specification
RFC (Request for Comments) specification writing with objective technical analysis. Use when creating technical specifications, design documents, or architecture proposals that require structured evaluation of options and trade-offs.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a reasonably well-crafted description with explicit 'Use when' guidance and good trigger terms. Its main weaknesses are moderate specificity (could list more concrete actions) and some potential overlap with general documentation or architecture skills. The description follows proper third-person voice and avoids vague language.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions like 'generate comparison matrices', 'structure pros/cons analysis', or 'create decision frameworks' to improve specificity
Include distinguishing terms like 'RFC format', 'IETF-style', or 'formal proposal structure' to reduce conflict risk with general documentation skills
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (RFC/specification writing) and mentions some actions (creating specifications, design documents, architecture proposals, evaluation of options), but doesn't list multiple concrete specific actions like 'analyze trade-offs', 'generate comparison tables', or 'structure sections'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('RFC specification writing with objective technical analysis') and when ('Use when creating technical specifications, design documents, or architecture proposals that require structured evaluation of options and trade-offs'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'RFC', 'technical specifications', 'design documents', 'architecture proposals', 'trade-offs'. These are terms users would naturally use when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to RFC/specification writing, but 'design documents' and 'architecture proposals' could overlap with general documentation or architecture skills. The 'structured evaluation of options' helps distinguish it but isn't unique enough. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured RFC writing skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity. The templates, checklists, and lifecycle documentation are immediately usable. The main weakness is verbosity in explanatory sections (neutral language guidelines, criteria definitions) that could be condensed since Claude understands these concepts.
Suggestions
Condense the 'Neutral Language Guidelines' section to just the 'Use Instead' examples - Claude understands what subjective language is
Remove or significantly shorten the 'Evaluation Criteria Framework' explanations (Performance, Scalability, etc.) - these are standard concepts that don't need definitions
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some content Claude already knows (e.g., explaining what neutral language means, basic definitions of status terms). The document could be tightened by removing explanatory prose and keeping just the actionable templates and checklists. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, copy-paste ready templates including YAML frontmatter, markdown structure for options analysis with tables, directory structure, file naming conventions, and a complete quality checklist. The RFC template structure is immediately usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear lifecycle diagram (DRAFT → REVIEW → APPROVED → IN_PROGRESS → COMPLETED), explicit status definitions, quality checklist before transitioning to REVIEW status, and step-by-step integration workflow. The process is well-sequenced with validation checkpoint (checklist). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear section headers, appropriate use of tables for structured data, and references to external files (rfc-template.md, evaluation-matrix.md) for detailed content. The main document serves as an overview with one-level-deep references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- jpoutrin/product-forge
- Commit
0ebe7ae
- 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.