CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

spec-flow-analyzer

Analyzes specifications and feature descriptions for user flow completeness and gap identification. Use when a spec, plan, or feature description needs flow analysis, edge case discovery, or requirements validation.

64

Quality

79%

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/spec-flow-analyzer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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-organized, actionable instruction skill with a clear phased workflow and concrete examples. It is concise and free of padding, with only minor opportunities to tighten examples or add explicit reference signaling.

Suggestions

Consider trimming the three <examples> entries to two most-distinctive ones to improve token efficiency.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Phase 3 or 4 (e.g., 'Re-read the mapped flows against the spec to confirm each gap is real before writing a question') to strengthen workflow_clarity toward a 5.

If detailed output templates grow, split them into a referenced file with clear one-level-deep links to push progressive_disclosure to a 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; it earns its tokens, though the three-example <examples> block and some phase prose could be trimmed slightly.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, specific guidance including enumerated per-flow elements (entry point, decision points, unhappy paths) and a concrete good/bad question example ('When the OAuth provider returns a 429...'); absence of executable code is justified for an instruction-only skill, with minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 4-phase sequence (Ground, Map, Find, Formulate) plus a defined output format gives strong sequencing; validation-style checkpoints exist ('If the codebase already handles a concern... don't flag it as a gap') with only minor gaps and no need for destructive-operation feedback loops.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized sections and no nested references; no bundle files exist to verify, and the structure is clean, but it lacks the explicit one-level-deep reference signaling that would warrant a 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 well-constructed: it states concrete capabilities and an explicit 'Use when' trigger with natural phrasing. It is comprehensive and distinguishable, with only minor room to add synonyms or enumerate actions more fully.

Suggestions

Add a few natural synonyms users might say, such as 'spec review', 'requirements gaps', or 'find missing requirements', to broaden trigger coverage toward a 5.

Tighten the action list into a more enumerated form (e.g., 'maps user flows, surfaces missing edge cases, and formulates clarifying questions') to push specificity to a 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and lists several concrete actions ('user flow completeness', 'gap identification', 'flow analysis', 'edge case discovery', 'requirements validation'), but the actions are somewhat abstract compared to the fully enumerated 5-anchor example.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Analyzes specifications and feature descriptions for user flow completeness and gap identification') and when ('Use when a spec, plan, or feature description needs flow analysis...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage with 'spec', 'plan', 'feature description', 'flow analysis', 'edge case discovery', and 'requirements validation'; a few common synonyms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (spec/flow analysis) distinct from generic review skills, with minor overlap risk against general code-review or planning skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
udecode/plate
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.