CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

openspec-explore

Enter explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change.

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 ./.agents/skills/openspec-explore/SKILL.md
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 instruction-only skill that gives a thinking-partner stance concrete teeth: exact CLI commands, a capture table, explicit feedback loops via re-running status, and vivid worked examples. The main costs are token efficiency — repetitive store-flag parentheticals and two enormous run-on procedural paragraphs — and a missed opportunity to externalize the long entry-point examples.

Suggestions

State the sticky --store rule once and reference it (e.g. 'append the confirmed store flag to every command below'), removing the six repeated parentheticals from the capture steps.

Rewrite steps 2 and 4 of 'When no change exists' as short numbered bullets or a decision list for the conditional-prerequisite/skip logic; the current nested prose is the least actionable part of the skill.

Move the four full entry-point transcripts (roughly 120 lines) to a references/entry-points.md file and keep one exemplar inline, slimming SKILL.md to its stance, commands, and capture rules.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core stance guidance (The Stance, Guardrails) is efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but there is real tightening to do: the parenthetical '(append the confirmed `--store "<id>"`...)' repeats roughly six times across the capture steps, steps 2 and 4 of 'When no change exists' are run-on paragraphs of nested conditionals, and the manual-scaffolding prohibition appears both inline and again in Guardrails. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 2, since the padding is repetition and over-long sentences rather than explanations of concepts Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands are given throughout (openspec list --json, openspec new change "<name>", openspec status --change "<name>" --json, openspec instructions "<artifact-id>"...), plus a specific insight-to-artifact capture table and worked conversational examples for four entry points. It stays below anchor 5 because the conditional-prerequisite logic in steps 2 and 4 is written as dense prose that leaves execution ambiguous in edge cases, though it is well above anchor 3 since the guidance is real and executable, not pseudocode.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The capture workflows are numbered with explicit checkpoints and feedback loops: 'After creating each artifact, re-run openspec status --change "<name>" --json... and continue until every requested artifact is done, skipped', and 'Verify that the selected concrete output exists'. This matches anchor 4 (clear sequence with most checkpoints present) rather than 5 because there is no explicit validation of created artifacts (the validate command is listed among store-capable commands but never invoked in the workflow), and the deeply nested skip/prerequisite rules make the sequence harder to follow than a checklist would.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

As a single-file skill with no bundle files, it is well organized: clearly signaled sections (The Stance, What You Might Do, OpenSpec Awareness, Handling Different Entry Points, Guardrails) each with a distinct job and no nested references. It fits anchor 4 rather than 5 because roughly a third of the body is example transcripts and the dense artifact-capture procedure, which could be split into a references/ file (e.g. entry-point examples) to keep the main body lean; it is above anchor 3 since structure and navigation are clear, not merely present.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 solid description that explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with natural trigger phrasing. Its main weaknesses are abstract action language that undersells the concrete capabilities in the body (codebase investigation, comparison tables, diagramming, artifact capture) and a somewhat narrow when-clause that misses common synonyms like brainstorming.

Suggestions

Ground the actions in concrete operations, e.g. 'investigate the codebase, map architecture, sketch tradeoff tables and ASCII diagrams, and capture insights as OpenSpec change proposals' — this lifts specificity from abstract 'exploring ideas' language.

Broaden the when-clause with natural synonyms: 'Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through a design, investigate a problem, or clarify requirements before or during a change.'

Consider naming the capture capability in the description (offering to save insights as specs/design.md/proposal.md), since it is a distinctive differentiator from generic discussion skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain and three actions ("exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements"), matching the anchor for naming the domain with a few concrete actions but incomplete coverage. It stays at 3 rather than 4 because the actions are abstract (no concrete operations like codebase investigation, comparison tables, or diagramming that the body actually performs), and it is not 2 since it goes well beyond a bare domain mention.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what ("a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements") and the when ("Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change"). It falls short of anchor 5 because the when-clause is a single narrow trigger rather than multiple concrete trigger phrases with synonyms, but exceeds anchor 3 since the when is explicitly stated, not merely implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes several natural phrases users would actually say: "think through something", "exploring ideas", "investigating problems", "clarifying requirements". This fits anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) — common synonyms like "brainstorm", "spike", or "talk through a design" are absent, which keeps it below 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Phrases like "Enter explore mode", "thinking partner", and "before or during a change" anchor the skill to the OpenSpec change workflow, making it mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic brainstorming/discussion skills. It is not 5 because "exploring ideas" and "thinking partner" are generic enough that a user asking to brainstorm could plausibly trigger it outside an OpenSpec context.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

partme-ai/full-stack-skills

Path

.agents/skills/openspec-explore/SKILL.md

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.