to-spec

把当前对话转成 spec 并发布到项目 issue tracker——不做访谈，只综合已经讨论的内容。

Quality

59%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/engineering/to-spec/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 well-structured and lean, with a clear process and a self-contained spec template, but the publish step lacks executable specifics and a validation checkpoint before posting, capping actionability and workflow clarity at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add a concrete, executable step for publishing to the issue tracker (specific command or API/CLI) rather than the generic '发布到项目 issue tracker'.

Insert a validation checkpoint before publishing (e.g., 'Review the completed spec against the template; confirm all sections are filled; only then post and apply the ready-for-agent label').

Tighten the prototype-snippet exception and the duplicated seams guidance to lift conciseness from 4 toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean — the Process section and template avoid explaining concepts Claude already knows — but contains minor padding such as the extended prototype-snippet exception ('例外：如果 prototype 产出的 snippet...') and the repeated seams guidance that could be trimmed, fitting 'efficient with minor over-explanation'.	4 / 5
Actionability	The spec template gives concrete format guidance ('As an <actor>, I want a <feature>, so that <benefit>') and explicit section contents, but the publish step '发布到项目 issue tracker' and the /setup-matt-pocock-skills fallback give no executable command or API, leaving a key gap in the instruction chain.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a clear 3-step sequence (explore repo → draft seams and confirm → write and publish) with a user-confirmation checkpoint on seams, but the publish action has no validation step (e.g., verify the issue was created or the spec is complete before posting), so checkpoints are missing for the final risky step.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and none are needed; the body is well-organized with a single ## Process section and a self-contained inline <spec-template>, giving clear structure with easy navigation and no nested references, matching the simple-skill 5 anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 conveys a clear, fairly distinct purpose with a useful negative constraint, but lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger and broader keyword coverage, capping both completeness and trigger quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to turn the current discussion into a spec or write up requirements from the conversation').

Broaden trigger terms to include synonyms users actually say like 'requirements', 'write-up', 'ticket', or 'document the discussion'.

List one or two more concrete actions in the description (e.g., 'drafts a spec from seams and labels it ready-for-agent') to push specificity above the midpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes '转成 spec 并发布到项目 issue tracker' and '只综合已经讨论的内容' name the domain and 1-2 concrete actions (synthesize conversation, publish spec) but the action set is not comprehensive — no mention of drafting structure, labeling, or triage in the description itself.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does ('把当前对话转成 spec 并发布') but provides no 'when/Use when' trigger clause; per rubric guidance a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3 even though the what is clear.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms 'spec' and 'issue tracker' are present, but common variations users might say ('requirements', 'ticket', 'write up the discussion') are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is specific (synthesize current conversation into a spec, no interview) and the negative constraint '不做访谈' sharpens it against competing interview-style skills, leaving only minor overlap risk with general spec-writing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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: vinvcn/mattpocock-skills-zh-CN
Path: skills/engineering/to-spec/SKILL.md
Commit: 9fb0161

Reviewed: 4 days 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.