openspec-verify-change

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

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/openspec/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%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-sequenced, actionable verification workflow with concrete commands and parsing rules, clear graceful-degradation handling, and good section structure. It is slightly verbose in its templated report boilerplate and heuristics restatement, and could offload the report template to a reference file.

Suggestions

Tighten the "Final Assessment" and "Verification Heuristics" sections, which restate guidance already implied by the numbered steps, to improve token efficiency.

Give a concrete method for scenario-test detection (e.g., a grep pattern or test-runner command) rather than the vague "Check if tests exist".

Move the full report-scorecard template into a referenced file (e.g., references/report-template.md) and keep only the structure summary inline, to improve progressive disclosure.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly procedural and actionable rather than padded with concepts Claude already knows, but the report template, "Final Assessment" boilerplate, and the restated "Verification Heuristics" section could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete commands (openspec list/status/instructions apply), explicit parsing markers (- [ ] vs - [x], ### Requirement:, #### Scenario:), and a copy-paste report template, with minor gaps such as no concrete command for finding scenario tests.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered 8-step sequence with graceful-degradation fallbacks for missing artifacts; being a read-only verification skill it is not subject to the destructive-operation validation cap, though it lacks an explicit validate-and-retry loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A single self-contained SKILL.md is well-organized into labeled sections (Steps, Verification Heuristics, Graceful Degradation, Output Format) with no nested or buried references; no bundle files exist, so the split is appropriate, though at ~157 lines some report-template detail could live in a reference file.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 cleanly answers what the skill does and when to use it in third person with concrete trigger phrasing, scoring well on completeness and trigger terms. It is slightly held back by the generic "verify" verb and modest action specificity.

Suggestions

Replace the generic verb "verify" with two or three concrete actions (e.g., "Check task checkboxes, search for requirement implementations, and report gaps") to lift specificity.

Add natural synonyms or artifact terms users may say (e.g., "specs", "tasks", "design.md", "before archiving a change") to broaden trigger term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("implementation matches change artifacts") and concrete dimensions ("complete, correct, and coherent") but the primary verb is the generic "verify" rather than a list of several specific concrete actions, leaving coverage incomplete.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("Verify implementation matches change artifacts") and when ("Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving") with concrete trigger phrasing.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ("verify implementation", "validate that implementation is complete", "before archiving") with good coverage, though a few synonyms or artifact-type terms are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche (validating openspec change artifacts before archiving) is fairly distinct with specific triggers, with only minor overlap risk against general code-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 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: rpamis/comet
Path: eval/local/skills/benchmarks/dependency/openspec/openspec-verify-change/SKILL.md
Commit: c1118e1

Reviewed: ~17 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.