BB openspec-update-change
Update an OpenSpec change by revising its existing planning artifacts and keeping them coherent with one another. Use when the user wants to revise a change's plan, fold new decisions into it, or reconcile its artifacts after an edit. Also use when the user says "openspec update change" or "opsx update". If the user means the openspec update CLI command, which refreshes generated files, run that command instead. Never edits code.
Update an OpenSpec change by revising its existing planning artifacts and keeping them coherent with one another.
As a process B 69/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
The same skill appears in 1 more place: tiny-engineer
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 67): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 69/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 43 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 7 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2725 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low The response is described with custom markup (10 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +4Structure: 0 headings, hard to scan
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5Long text without headings
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 2 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 433: enough signal without eating the budget
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 43 items
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 81.