Use for change traceability review across specs, commits, PRs, branches, local diffs, and git history, including Spec Preparation, Review Readiness Checks, and Review Retrospectives, to generate or verify Story-linked specs, commit-message evidence, test evidence, risk signals, AI involvement, and review-flow improvement suggestions.
SkillScore79Maintained
Automatic
◆Coding pack
Last verified 8/13/2026
What it changes
Passed 17 of 21 test cases with the skill, and 3 of 21 without it.
Without skill13%
With skill79%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response is written in Chinese.
The response specifies a default audit window of 30 commits.
The response flags missing Spec, Test, or Risk evidence in commit history.
and 8 more in the full report
16 fixed3 passed either way5 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+67 pp
Tokens
+2%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-19%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/13/2026v119 of 24 cases passed with skill · 21 comparable
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 16
Prompt
When gathering project rules and instructions for drafting ticket #305's specification, should I search the entire history of external messaging channels and uncommitted personal notes, or focus on local repository files?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response instructs gathering instructions from local repository files such as AGENTS.md and spec files.
Passed
Passed
The response is written in Chinese.
Missed
Passed
case-13 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/13/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md34 lines6 files
Change Traceability Review
Review the traceability behind a change, not code style: Story or issue -> Spec
-> plan/tasks -> commit/branch/PR -> diff -> tests -> risk. Default to Chinese
and keep the report compact and decision-oriented. Treat specs as the review
source of truth; code is acceptable when it clearly serves the spec.
Modes
Spec Preparation: before implementation or commit, create or tighten a
Story-linked spec and define acceptance scenarios, plan/tasks, tests, and risk
evidence that later commits can cite. Load Spec Contract.
Review Readiness Check: inspect the current diff, staged diff, PR text,
branch, or selected commits before review/merge. Load Mode Rules
and Reporting.
Review Retrospective: inspect recent history, usually latest 30 commits.
Identify commit-message habits, weak traceability, missing Spec/Test/Risk
evidence, oversized or mixed-scope commits, spec-doc patterns, and rework
signals. Load Mode Rules and Reporting.
Entry and Routing
Identify the mode from the user's request or the current review surface.
Read repo instructions first: nearest AGENTS.md, plugin manifests, and the
target spec or diff.
Gather bounded local evidence using Evidence Commands.
Apply the relevant contract:
Spec Preparation: Spec Contract
Commits: Commit Contract
Any review: Mode Rules
Produce the report using Reporting.
Keep generated helpers and local experiments outside SKILL.md unless they are
durable resources the skill must use.