gjalla-spec-review
Review Software Specifications Before Implementation
Ambiguous specifications create implementation gaps, security risks, and costly rework. This skill reviews plans through architecture, security, quality, user, and governance perspectives before engineers begin implementation.
自分のエージェントでインストール
このリクエストをエージェントにコピーしてください。正規の Skill ページとマニフェストが含まれています。
Review the Skillstore skill "gjalla-spec-review" from https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.エージェントは引き続き計画を提示し、セキュリティポリシーで必要な確認を求める必要があります。
エージェントが読めるリソース
AI エージェント、クローラー、スクリプトがページ全体ではなく整理されたコンテキストを必要とする場合は、これらのリンクを使ってください。
テストする
「gjalla-spec-review」を使用しています。 Review a specification that adds an administrative export endpoint without authorization details.
期待される結果:
- Blocking concern: The specification does not define authorization for the administrative export endpoint.
- Required change: Name the allowed roles, enforcement point, denied behavior, and audit logging requirements.
- Verification: Add positive and negative authorization tests for every supported role.
「gjalla-spec-review」を使用しています。 Review a design that introduces asynchronous processing but omits failure behavior.
期待される結果:
- Architecture risk: Retry ownership, idempotency, ordering, and dead-letter handling are unspecified.
- User risk: The specification does not explain delayed completion or permanent failure.
- Recommendation: Define retry limits, status visibility, recovery procedures, and acceptance tests.
「gjalla-spec-review」を使用しています。 Review a mature specification with complete architecture and security sections.
期待される結果:
Passes: Architecture boundaries and security controls are explicit. Recommendation: Map each acceptance criterion to a named integration or end-to-end test.
セキュリティ監査
安全The sole static finding is a false positive caused by benign wording about reviewing a specification from multiple expert perspectives. The skill contains only review guidance and shows no malicious intent, prompt injection, or operational security behavior.
このレポートを共有・引用
バージョン付き評価レポート、中立的なバッジ、埋め込みカード、引用を共有できます。Skillstore は証拠を報告しますが、この Skill が安全かどうかは判断しません。
レポートリンクをコピー
https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdownバッジ
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTMLバッジ
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>埋め込みカード
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>学術引用 (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA形式の引用
gjalla. (2026). gjalla-spec-review security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/audits/1BibTeX形式の引用
@techreport{gjalla-gjalla-gjalla-spec-review-2026,
author = {gjalla},
title = {gjalla-spec-review security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/audits/1},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "gjalla-spec-review security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "gjalla"
date-released: "2026-08-11"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:gjalla-gjalla-spec-review:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore スコア
このスコアの理由 証拠の信頼度: 中作成できるもの
Prepare an Engineering Handoff
Review a feature specification for missing decisions, unclear acceptance criteria, and implementation risks before assigning development work.
Strengthen a Technical Design
Check architecture boundaries, integration patterns, security controls, and testing plans before requesting design approval.
Validate Product Readiness
Assess user outcomes, failure handling, discoverability, and documentation requirements before committing a feature to delivery.
これらのプロンプトを試す
Review this specification using the five defined perspectives. List blocking concerns, recommendations, and concrete changes needed before implementation: [paste specification]
Review this draft specification. Identify missing decisions and assumptions, then propose testable acceptance criteria: [paste draft and relevant project context]
Review this cross-system design against these architecture rules. Trace integration, data flow, ownership, security, testing, and governance risks: [design] [rules]
Perform a final specification review using this project context. Prioritize blockers, explain impact, propose exact revisions, and define verification criteria: [specification] [context]
ベストプラクティス
- Provide the complete specification, relevant architecture rules, and known project constraints.
- Resolve blocking concerns before using recommendations to improve clarity and maintainability.
- Convert every approved revision into measurable acceptance criteria and verification steps.
回避
- Do not request a definitive review from a short summary that omits system context.
- Do not treat recommendations as mandatory without considering project priorities and tradeoffs.
- Do not accept broad statements such as secure or well tested without measurable criteria.