CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

openspec-new-change

Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow. Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification with a structured step-by-step approach.

68

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 content is a well-structured, actionable instruction skill: concrete openspec commands, a clear numbered workflow with a stop checkpoint, and a tight Guardrails section with no padded explanation. It misses the top marks mainly on conciseness and a few actionability edges, and workflow_clarity could reach 5 with an explicit validation/retry loop.

Suggestions

Tighten emphasis and restatement: replace "**IMPORTANT**: Do NOT proceed without understanding what the user wants to build" with a single concise directive, and merge the repeated kebab-case input rules into one place.

Add a lightweight validation/retry checkpoint after `openspec new change` (e.g., confirm the directory was created and surface errors before proceeding to `openspec status`) to push workflow_clarity to 5.

Make the command examples fully copy-paste ready by clarifying how `<name>` and `<first-artifact-id>` are substituted from prior command output rather than leaving them as placeholders.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows and keeps each step tight and purposeful; minor emphasis tokens ("**IMPORTANT**", "**Otherwise**") and slight restatement of the input rule could still be trimmed, so it sits just below lean/efficient.

4 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, runnable commands (openspec new change, status, instructions, schemas --json) plus a worked name-derivation example, with only minor gaps such as placeholder substitution guidance; fully actionable but not copy-paste-complete across all branches.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence with an explicit STOP checkpoint and guardrails for invalid names and existing changes; it lacks an explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop, but since the operation is non-destructive scaffolding the destructive-cap does not apply, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references and is cleanly organized into Input, Steps, Output, and Guardrails sections, meeting the simple-skill exception for a top progressive-disclosure score.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 strong: it states a concrete capability and gives explicit trigger guidance with natural terms, fully answering both what and when. The only mild gap is that it advertises a single action rather than the full artifact sequence, which keeps specificity and trigger coverage just below the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow" names the domain and a concrete action; it stops short of listing the full sequence (scaffold, status, instructions), so it is not comprehensive enough for a 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Start a new OpenSpec change using the experimental artifact workflow") and when ("Use when the user wants to create a new feature, fix, or modification"), matching the anchor for clearly explicit what-and-when with concrete triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"new feature, fix, or modification" and "structured step-by-step approach" are natural phrases a user would say, but it omits synonyms (e.g., "OpenSpec", "proposal") and a file/CLI hook, keeping it just below comprehensive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenSpec change" and "experimental artifact workflow" carve a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with unrelated skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
rpamis/comet
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.