CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

apm-spec-guardian

Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-*.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/*.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed (tests/fixtures/spec-conformance/**). The panel fans out to four spec-ecosystem reviewers (swagger-openapi-editor, oci-distribution-editor, pkgmgr-registry-contract-editor, w3c-tag-architect), each running in its own agent thread, and a spec-editor synthesizer that produces a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale. The orchestrator is the sole writer to the PR: ONE consolidated comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes folds, and renders a ship recommendation that the maintainer weighs.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%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 highly actionable with a clearly sequenced six-wave workflow, explicit validation/feedback loops, and well-structured one-level-deep references to real bundle files. Its only minor weakness is conciseness: several invariants are restated across sections, adding some length that could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated invariants (advisory regime, single-writer, ASCII-only, no-vendor-foundation) into a single 'Architecture invariants' block and reference it from later sections instead of restating each rule.

Move the detailed per-wave prompt-contract bullet lists into a referenced asset file (e.g. a panelist-prompt-template) so the orchestrator-level body stays a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operationally packed with little concept-overexplaining, but it is long (~250 lines) and repeats invariants across sections (the advisory regime, single-writer, ASCII, and no-vendor-foundation rules each appear multiple times); it is efficient but could be tightened in spots, sitting just below the score-5 'lean, every token earns its place' anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: named task personas with relative paths, explicit decision rules with thresholds ('added < 50 lines AND removed < 50 lines', 'shocked_meter_avg >= 7.0'), exact tool calls ('safe-outputs.remove-labels', 'add-comment max:1'), and real referenced asset files (panelist-return-schema.json, synthesizer-return-schema.json, comment-template.md, linter-checklist.md).

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-wave sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: Wave 0 scope decision, Wave 3 fan-out with schema validation and re-spawn-on-malformed ('max 2 attempts'), Wave 4 synthesizer with re-spawn-on-failure-once, Wave 5 mandatory linter before render, and feedback loops plus loop-budget exhaustion semantics for the destructive/batch write operation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is an overview that points one level deep to real, well-signaled asset files (panelist-return-schema.json, synthesizer-return-schema.json, linter-checklist.md, comment-template.md) and persona files; the bulk (linter checks, schemas, template) is appropriately split out rather than inlined, and navigation is explicit.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

85%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 is specific, complete, and tightly scoped to a distinct niche with explicit 'what' and 'when' guidance and third-person voice. Its only weakness is trigger-term naturalness: the keywords are precise and project-internal rather than the varied phrases a user would naturally say.

Suggestions

Add a few more user-facing trigger phrasings (e.g. 'review this spec PR', 'spec review', 'OpenAPM review') alongside the path globs so the description matches natural user language, not just repository-internal markers.

Consider including the more common synonyms or short forms (e.g. 'spec review panel', 'OpenAPM advisory review') to broaden trigger-term coverage without diluting the niche.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: 'four-panel adversarial advisory review', fans out to four named spec-ecosystem reviewers, a synthesizer producing 'a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale', and 'ONE consolidated comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating'.

5 / 5

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (run a four-panel adversarial advisory review producing fold/defer/reject lists and a ship decision) and 'when' ('Use this skill to run ... on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact'), with concrete trigger paths stated explicitly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms are precise but narrow and project-internal ('pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact', specific path globs); they are not the natural phrases a general user would say, and synonyms/common variations are absent. It is below the score-4 anchor (good natural keyword coverage) but above score-2 (only generic keywords).

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear, narrow niche (OpenAPM spec PRs touching specific path globs) with distinct, domain-locked triggers and an explicit carve-out ('Edits to any OTHER documentation page MUST NOT trigger this skill'), giving minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 5 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
microsoft/apm
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.