BF spec-flow
Spec-driven development workflow. Interactive phase-by-phase confirmation from proposal to implementation. Trigger: 'spec-flow', 'spec mode', 'need a plan', 'structured development', 'write a spec', 'feature spec', 'technical spec', '需求文档', '技术方案', '任务拆解', '规格驱动', '写个方案', '做个规划', '结构化开发', 'plan this feature', 'break this down', 'design doc'. Creates .spec-flow/ directory with proposal, requirements, design, and tasks.
Spec-driven development workflow.
As a process F 33/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: templates/proposal.md.template, templates/requirements.md.template, templates/design.md.template
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: 12. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/proposal.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/requirements.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/design.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/tasks.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/steering/constitution.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/steering/product.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/steering/tech.md.template - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/steering/structure.md.template
Process rating: all ten parameters 33/100
- 0Tools and files. 8 referenced file(s) missing: templates/proposal.md.template, templates/requirements.md.template, templates/design.md.template
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 85Steps. 39 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1066 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- low The response is described with custom markup (6 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
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -32 of 3 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 421: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 11 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 39 items
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 5)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 73.