We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

• ≈0

  Common · estimate

  Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

• ≈6

  Distinctive · estimate

  This author's own choices. Worth a look.

• 3

  Very specific

  Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

• Common
• Distinctive
• Very specific

1. Very specific:

   Use after mini-spec and before thin-plan, especially when the next step would turn unclear requirements into implementation tasks.

   line 14
2. Very specific:

   Check that unresolved ambiguity is marked with [NEEDS CLARIFICATION: ...].

   line 26
3. Distinctive:

   Check that acceptance criteria are observable.

   line 27
4. Distinctive:

   Check that success criteria are measurable.

   line 28
5. Distinctive:

   Check that non-goals are explicit.

   line 29
6. Distinctive:

   Check that a verification demo exists.

   line 30
7. Distinctive:

   Check that a scope boundary can be defined.

   line 31
8. Distinctive:

   Check that speculative features are absent.

   line 32
9. Very specific:

   Update CHECKLIST.md with pass, fail, or needs-clarification notes.

   line 33

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.