technical-spec-template-e2dd49 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited technical-spec-template-e2dd49 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Write technical specifications that engineers actually read — clear problem framing, unambiguous requirements, explicit decisions, and documented trade-offs.
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
Write a tech spec when:
Skip the spec for trivial bug fixes or 1-2 hour changes.
Author: [Name] Status: Draft | In Review | Approved | Implemented Created: [Date] | Last Updated: [Date] Reviewers: [Eng Lead, Architect, PM, Security if needed] Related PRD: [Link] | Jira Epic: [Link]
#### 1. Problem Statement
[2–3 sentences. What problem are we solving and why now? No solution language here.]
#### 2. Goals & Non-Goals
Goals (in scope):
Non-Goals (explicitly out of scope):
#### 3. Background & Context [Any prior art, related systems, or context engineers need to understand the decision space. Link to previous specs, ADRs, or research.]
#### 4. Proposed Solution
High-Level Approach: [2–4 sentences describing the chosen solution. Why this approach vs alternatives?]
System Architecture Diagram: [Describe or embed: which services are involved, how data flows, what APIs are called]
Data Model Changes:
-- New tables or schema changes
[Include DDL or schema definition]API Design:
[Endpoint] [Method]
Request: { [fields and types] }
Response: { [fields and types] }
Error codes: [list]Key Implementation Details:
#### 5. Alternative Approaches Considered
| Option | Pros | Cons | Why Rejected |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Alt 1] | [Benefits] | [Drawbacks] | [Reason not chosen] |
| [Alt 2] | [Benefits] | [Drawbacks] | [Reason not chosen] |
#### 6. Security & Privacy Considerations
#### 7. Performance & Scalability
#### 8. Testing Plan
#### 9. Rollout Plan
#### 10. Open Questions
| Question | Owner | Due Date | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Unresolved question] | [Name] | [Date] | [Pending] |
#### 11. Implementation Timeline (Rough)
| Phase | Work | Estimated Effort |
|---|---|---|
| [Phase 1] | [What gets built] | [X days/points] |
| [Phase 2] | [What gets built] | [X days/points] |
| Total | [X story points] |
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem framing | Problem statement is the solution restated ("we need a queue"), or missing; no non-goals | Problem stated but with solution language leaking in; non-goals present but generic ("out of scope: everything else") | Problem described in user/business terms with numbers, independent of any solution; goals measurable; ≥2 non-goals that shut down real scope assumptions |
| Decision documentation | One approach, no alternatives — a design description, not a decision record | Alternatives table exists but strawmanned (cons-only options nobody argued for); rejection reasons are taste, not evidence | ≥2 genuine alternatives with honest pros, evidence-based rejection reasons, recorded dissent where it exists, and revisit triggers for contested calls |
| Security & privacy depth | Section skipped or "N/A" on a feature that touches user data | Boilerplate answers (encrypt at rest/in transit) with no analysis of this feature's specific data exposure | Data touched is enumerated, the design's single largest privacy risk is named, authn/authz/compliance addressed concretely, and unresolved risks visibly gate approval |
| Operational readiness | No testing plan, rollout plan, or rollback trigger; open questions absent or all "TBD" | Testing and rollout sketched but rollback is untested intent; some open questions lack owners or dates | Tests cover the tricky edge cases, rollout is staged with progress criteria, rollback trigger is concrete (and doesn't strand data), and every open question has a named owner and due date |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.