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.

68

Quality

85%

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

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an excellent lean procedural guide: tightly sequenced phases, a grounding feedback loop, concrete output structure, and no token waste on concepts Claude already knows. The main gap is actionability — as an instruction-only skill it is specific but stops short of executable artifacts or fully spelled-out tool invocations.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete tool-invocation examples (e.g., a sample Grep pattern or a mermaid snippet) to make the workflow more copy-paste ready.

Show a brief example of a finished gap/question output entry so the expected format is unambiguous rather than only described.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it gives procedural guidance without explaining what a spec, OAuth, or mermaid diagram is, and every section earns its place with concrete directives. This matches the score-3 anchor of lean, efficient content that assumes Claude's intelligence.

3 / 3

Actionability

The guidance is concrete and well-structured (named checklist items, a Good/Bad question example, severity tiers) but it is instructional rather than executable — there is no code, command, or copy-paste artifact, and several steps ('use the native content-search tool', 'walk through the spec as a user') leave the exact execution implicit. This matches the score-2 anchor of concrete guidance that is incomplete and lacks executable specifics.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four phases are explicitly sequenced (Ground -> Map -> Find -> Formulate) with a defined Output Format, and Phase 1 establishes a validation checkpoint ('Gaps are only gaps if the codebase doesn't already handle them') that feeds back into Phase 3. The multi-step process is clearly ordered with a feedback loop, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and the content is well-organized into clearly headed sections (Phases, Output Format, Principles) with no nested references. Per the rubric's simple-skills note, well-organized self-contained content scores 3 even without external file references.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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 strong: it names concrete capabilities, explicitly pairs 'what' with a 'Use when' trigger, and carves a distinct niche. Its only weakness is that some trigger phrasing is slightly technical, missing a few natural user variations like 'review my plan' or 'what did I miss'.

Suggestions

Add more natural trigger phrasings users actually say, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to review a spec, find what's missing in a plan, or check requirements before building.'

Consider softening the technical terms ('user flow completeness', 'gap identification') in the trigger clause toward plainer user language ('what's missing', 'edge cases').

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'flow analysis, edge case discovery, or requirements validation' and 'user flow completeness and gap identification' — naming specific capabilities rather than vague language. It matches the score-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (analyzes specs for flow completeness and gap identification) and 'when' via a clear 'Use when...' clause listing spec/plan/feature descriptions needing analysis. This matches the score-3 anchor of clearly answering both what AND when with explicit triggers.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural terms a user might say ('spec', 'feature description', 'plan'), but 'user flow completeness' and 'gap identification' lean technical and it omits common user phrasings like 'review my spec' or 'what am I missing'. It has relevant keywords but is missing common variations, matching the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche of pre-implementation spec/flow gap analysis with a distinct 'Use when' trigger is clearly distinguishable from build/test/refactor skills and unlikely to trigger for the wrong skill. It matches the score-3 anchor of a clear niche with distinct triggers.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

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.