spec-requirements
Generate comprehensive requirements definition documents with technology selection and improvement suggestions
48
35%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.claude/skills/spec-requirements/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 provides a general sense of the skill's purpose but lacks the specificity and explicit trigger guidance needed for reliable skill selection. It names the domain but doesn't enumerate concrete deliverables or include a 'Use when...' clause, making it harder for Claude to distinguish this skill from other documentation or planning skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'requirements document', 'requirements spec', 'system specification', 'technology stack selection', or 'project requirements'.
List specific concrete actions such as 'Generates functional and non-functional requirements, recommends technology stacks, identifies gaps, and proposes improvement items in a structured document format'.
Include common user phrasing variations like 'requirements doc', 'spec document', 'RFP', or 'system design requirements' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (requirements definition documents) and some actions (generate, technology selection, improvement suggestions), but lacks concrete specifics about what the documents contain or what formats/structures are produced. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does (generate requirements documents with technology selection and suggestions) but completely lacks any 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also not very detailed, placing this at 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like 'requirements definition' and 'technology selection,' but misses common user variations such as 'requirements doc,' 'spec,' 'specification,' 'system requirements,' 'technical requirements,' or 'RFP.' | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Somewhat specific to requirements definition documents, but 'technology selection' and 'improvement suggestions' are broad enough to overlap with general consulting, architecture, or documentation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a good reference card for CLI options and usage examples but falls short on actionable workflow guidance. It tells Claude what the command options are but doesn't clearly instruct how to actually generate requirements documents step-by-step. The absence of example output and validation steps significantly limits its effectiveness as an operational guide.
Suggestions
Add a concrete step-by-step workflow for each mode (new creation and reverse engineering) with explicit validation checkpoints, e.g., 'Confirm requirements coverage with user before finalizing'
Include at least one complete example output showing a generated requirements document with EARS-format acceptance criteria, so Claude knows exactly what to produce
Add a verification/review step to the workflow, such as checking completeness against the output structure or validating that all functional areas are covered
Move the detailed options table and template descriptions to a separate reference file, keeping SKILL.md focused on the core workflow and quick-start examples
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably structured but includes some unnecessary detail like the full options table and template table that could be more compact. The tool priorities section explaining fallback patterns is useful but the Context7 Integration subsection listing common frameworks adds little value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides CLI usage examples and describes the output structure, but lacks concrete executable guidance on what Claude should actually do when generating requirements. There are no example outputs showing what a generated requirements document looks like, and the EARS format section gives patterns but no complete worked example. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill describes modes and output structure but lacks a clear step-by-step workflow for how Claude should execute the requirements generation process. The reverse engineering mode lists 3 high-level steps but without validation checkpoints or detailed sequencing. There's no feedback loop or verification step for the generated output. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is organized into logical sections with clear headers, but everything is inline in a single file. For a skill of this complexity with multiple modes, templates, and output formats, some content (like detailed template formats or example outputs) could be split into referenced files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- sc30gsw/claude-code-customes
- Commit
7aff694
- 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.