CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

openspec-verify-change

Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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, highly actionable verification workflow with concrete commands, clear sequencing, calibration heuristics, and graceful degradation. It avoids verbosity and concept-explanation padding while remaining self-contained and well-organized.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean imperative prose with no concept-explanation padding; every section (Input, Steps, Heuristics, Graceful Degradation, Output Format) earns its place and assumes Claude's competence.

3 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete executable commands ('openspec list --json', 'openspec status --change "<name>" --json', 'openspec instructions apply --change "<name>" --json'), explicit checkbox-parsing rules, a report structure template, and copy-ready issue formats.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

An explicitly sequenced 8-step workflow with calibration guidance ('False Positives' prefer SUGGESTION over WARNING over CRITICAL), graceful-degradation branches, and a priority-escalated report; verification (read-only) does not require the destructive/batch feedback-loop cap.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Self-contained with no bundle files and well-organized sections; content is appropriately partitioned inline with no nested external references, satisfying the simple-skill allowance.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

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 distinctive with an explicit 'Use when' trigger in third-person voice. Its only weakness is trigger-term coverage, which relies on artifact jargon rather than a broader set of natural phrases a user might say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Verify implementation matches change artifacts', 'validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving' — verifying plus validating across three named dimensions and archive-readiness.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ('Verify implementation matches change artifacts') and when via an explicit 'Use when the user wants to validate...' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some natural user phrasing ('validate that implementation is complete', 'before archiving') but leans on 'change artifacts' jargon and misses common variations a user might say.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (pre-archive implementation validation tied to change artifacts) with a distinct trigger unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

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.