spec-review

Solid

Review a feature spec before architecture, test planning, planning, or implementation. Use when the user asks to challenge requirement clarity, normative language, completeness, testability, examples, compatibility, observability, security/privacy, non-goals, acceptance criteria, or readiness. Use spec to write specs; use proposal-review, architecture-review, plan-review, code-review, verify, or pr for those stages.

Code & Development 3 stars 0 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 82/100

Stars 20%
20
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Spec review Independently review a feature specification as a formal contract gate. Produce durable evidence or report blocked recording. Explicit feedback requesting no formal status, readiness, record, or lifecycle use belongs outside `spec-review`. ## Workflow role - role_name: spec-review - stage: review - upstream: feature spec, linked proposal, exploration, research, local contracts, and workflow evidence - downstream: spec revision, review-resolution, architecture, plan, no handoff, and eventual test-spec readiness assessment - summary: Review the feature spec and record approval, changes requested, blockers, or inconclusive state. - ownership: Write formal review evidence and, with exact governed authority, settle only the matching spec entry. Workflow owns routing and continuation. - must_not_claim: architecture completion, plan completion, test-spec completion, implementation readiness, verification, branch readiness, or PR readiness Do not edit the specification unless explicitly asked for combined review and revision. Record first-pass review before any authorized correction. ## Invocation classification Classify before conditional loading or mutation. Settlement mode is exactly `isolated` or `governed-spec-entry`; governed mode requires one current `stage-owned-change-local-v1` change, specification, and matching reviewable entry. Recording and direct wording never grant governed authority. Automation mode is exactly `manual` or `workflow-managed-automat...

Details

Author
xiongxianfei
Repository
xiongxianfei/rigorloop
Created
4 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
Python
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Testing & QA Solid

test-spec-review

Independently review an active test specification before implementation. Use to assess proof-map alignment, requirement and edge-case coverage, milestone mapping, validation commands, fixtures, automation versus manual evidence, and implementation handoff readiness. Use test-spec to author or revise the proof map; use code-review and verify for implemented tests and final evidence.

3 Updated today
xiongxianfei
Code & Development Listed

spec-review

Pre-plan gate that reviews a product or requirements spec (PRD, requirements doc, feature spec) for ambiguity, untestable requirements, and missing non-functional considerations before a plan is authored. Quotes each vague phrase verbatim and proposes a precise rewrite. Use when a spec exists but no plan has been written yet, or before handing a spec to plan-author.

0 Updated yesterday
jedarden
Code & Development Listed

review-spec

Architectural review of a specification or design document, performed before implementation begins. Use whenever a spec or design proposal is in scope and the user asks any quality question — even when not phrased explicitly: 'review this spec', 'evaluate this design', 'is this spec implementable', 'is this ready to build', 'check this architecture proposal', 'review the design for feature X', 'is this design sound', 'what's missing from this spec'. Also triggers when a file under `.specs/` is being evaluated without an existing implementation. Do NOT use for verifying an existing implementation against a spec, reviewing a PR or implementation changes, reviewing an existing system's architecture, or security review. Identify the spec and any review focus in the arguments; the skill does not infer them from the conversation.

5 Updated today
sergeyklay