CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

speckit-analyze

Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.

64

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/speckit-analyze/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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.

A highly actionable, well-sequenced read-only analysis procedure with concrete commands, report templates, and severity heuristics. Its weaknesses are token redundancy from a verbatim-duplicated extension-hook block and a monolithic single-file layout where reference files would serve progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the extension-hook procedure: the 'Pre-Execution Checks' section and Execution Step 9 repeat ~40 lines each; define the hook protocol once and reference it (or move it to a hooks.md reference file covering both before_analyze and after_analyze).

Split detailed material into one-level-deep references (e.g., report-format.md for the table templates and metrics, detection.md for the six detection passes) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

Remove or relocate the shell-quoting aside about "I'm Groot" — it is unrelated to the analysis workflow and adds noise to the prerequisites step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly tight operational instruction with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but it carries clear redundancy: the extension-hook procedure (parse extensions.yml, filter enabled, condition handling, dot-to-hyphen command mapping, optional/mandatory output templates) appears twice nearly verbatim in "Pre-Execution Checks" and "Execution Steps > 9" (~80 combined lines), plus a misplaced quoting-escape aside about "I'm Groot". This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened) more than anchor 2, since the padding is duplication rather than concept over-explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: the exact prerequisite command (".specify/scripts/powershell/check-prerequisites.ps1 -Json -RequireTasks -IncludeTasks"), exact artifact path derivations, a concrete report template with an example findings row and metric list, named severity tiers with examples ("one requires Next.js while other specifies Vue"), and explicit abort instructions. Copy-paste-ready commands and templates cover the common cases, matching anchor 5.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Nine numbered execution steps are clearly sequenced, starting with a prerequisites gate (abort with instructions if files missing), followed by artifact loading, semantic model construction, six named detection passes, severity assignment, a structured report, severity-gated next actions, and opt-in remediation. Read-only operation is enforced throughout, zero-issue handling is specified, and deterministic reruns are required — matching anchor 5's explicit checkpoints and error-recovery guidance.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the skill is a single ~245-line SKILL.md with good section headers. However, the duplicated hook procedure (~80 lines) is content that clearly belongs in a shared reference file, and a file this length should split detailed material (e.g., hook protocol, report format) into one-level-deep references. This fits anchor 3 (some structure, content that should be separate is inline) better than anchor 4, where most content is appropriately placed across files.

3 / 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.

A solid, specific description that clearly identifies the domain, mode, and timing. Its main gap is trigger phrasing oriented to workflow position rather than user intent, plus missing natural synonyms for the analysis types it performs.

Suggestions

Add an explicit user-intent trigger clause, e.g. "Use when the user asks to check, review, or analyze the spec-kit artifacts for inconsistencies."

Include natural trigger synonyms for the analysis performed: inconsistencies, duplications, coverage gaps, ambiguities, so users searching those terms hit this skill.

Mention the constitution-alignment check (a distinctive capability of this skill) to strengthen both distinctiveness and 'what' coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md" names the exact domain artifacts and several concrete action attributes (non-destructive mode, cross-artifact scope, consistency + quality analysis). It falls short of anchor 5 because it does not enumerate the specific analysis actions (inconsistencies, duplications, coverage gaps) and above anchor 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are specified.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (non-destructive consistency/quality analysis across the three named artifacts) and a 'when' is present ("after task generation"). It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the trigger is phrased as workflow timing rather than an explicit user-intent clause like "Use when the user asks to analyze or review the spec artifacts", and it is above anchor 3 because a real, explicit 'when' condition exists.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Concrete file-name triggers ("spec.md", "plan.md", "tasks.md") plus "task generation", "consistency" and "quality analysis" give good keyword coverage a spec-kit user would naturally say. A few natural synonyms are missing ("inconsistencies", "coverage gaps", "review the spec"), which keeps it below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming the three spec-kit artifact files carves out a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic analysis/review skills; no other common skill would trigger on this phrasing.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
unoplatform/uno
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.