sync-specs

Use when code changes may have made documentation outdated, when reviewing docs for consistency, or when the user asks to sync or audit documentation.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

100%

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

The body is a tight, actionable reference with executable commands, concrete file mappings, and a workflow that includes explicit validation and re-verification checkpoints. It is well-organized and self-contained with no unnecessary concept explanations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and reference-dense — executable git commands, mapping tables, and rules — with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows, matching the 3-anchor ('Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place').	3 / 3
Actionability	It provides fully executable git diff commands, specific doc file paths in the Impact Mapping, concrete scope keywords, and explicit rules, meeting the 3-anchor for copy-paste-ready concrete guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step Workflow has a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints — user approval before applying fixes (step 7) and re-verifying touched Cross-Reference Pairs afterward (step 8) — plus a no-auto-commit rule, matching the 3-anchor for explicit validation and feedback loops.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist (references/scripts/assets absent), and the body is a single self-contained doc organized into well-labeled sections with no nested references, so per the simple-skill guidance it earns the 3-anchor for well-organized structure.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Description

72%

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 has strong, natural trigger terms and a distinct niche, but its capability statement is implied through trigger phrasing rather than leading with concrete actions. Adding a brief 'what it does' clause before the 'Use when...' triggers would lift specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete capability clause (e.g., 'Reviews code changes and updates project documentation to match.') before the 'Use when...' triggers to explicitly answer 'what' as well as 'when'.

Expand the action list beyond the implied review/sync/audit to specific concrete actions (e.g., 'detects outdated docs, verifies cross-references, proposes updates') to raise specificity to the 3-anchor.

Reduce the three repetitions of 'documentation' by varying phrasing ('docs', 'project docs') to tighten the trigger-term wording.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and some actions ('reviewing docs for consistency', 'sync or audit documentation') but lacks a leading list of multiple concrete capabilities, matching the 2-anchor ('Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive') rather than the 3-anchor's multi-action list.	2 / 3
Completeness	The 'when' is explicit and strong ('Use when code changes may have made documentation outdated...'), but the 'what' is only embedded inside the trigger clauses rather than stated as a crisp standalone capability, so it sits at the 2-anchor ('Has what, but when is missing or only implied') rather than clearly answering both.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It covers natural terms a user would actually say — 'sync documentation', 'audit documentation', 'reviewing docs for consistency', and 'documentation outdated' — meeting the 3-anchor for good coverage of natural terms.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (documentation ↔ code consistency) with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 3-anchor ('Clear niche with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict').	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: nexu-io/nexu
Path: skills/localdev/sync-specs/SKILL.md
Commit: dadfb1c

Reviewed: about 16 hours 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.