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.
使用我的智慧代理安裝
將此請求複製給你的智慧代理，其中包含權威 Skill 頁面和清單。
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.你的智慧代理仍應顯示其計畫，並依安全政策請求必要確認。
Agent 可讀資源
當 AI Agent、爬蟲或腳本需要乾淨脈絡、而不是讀取完整頁面時，請使用這些連結。
測試它
正在使用「gjalla-spec-review」。 Review a specification that adds an administrative export endpoint without authorization details.
預期結果:
- 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.
正在使用「gjalla-spec-review」。 Review a design that introduces asynchronous processing but omits failure behavior.
預期結果:
- 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.
正在使用「gjalla-spec-review」。 Review a mature specification with complete architecture and security sections.
預期結果:
Passes: Architecture boundaries and security controls are explicit. Recommendation: Map each acceptance criterion to a named integration or end-to-end test.
安全審計
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.
分享與引用此報告
分享版本化評估報告、中性徽章、嵌入卡片與引用。Skillstore 只報告證據，不判斷該 Skill 是否安全。
複製報告連結
https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown 徽章
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/gjalla-gjalla-spec-review?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML 徽章
<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>嵌入卡片
<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>學術引用 (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA 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 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 評分
評分依據 證據置信度: 中你可以打造什麼
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.
試試這些提示
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]
最佳實務
- 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.
避免
- 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.