# Paw Spec Review > Specification review skill for PAW workflow. Validates Spec.md against quality criteria and returns structured feedback for iteration. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/paw-spec-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/paw-spec-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/paw-spec-review/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/paw-spec-review --- # Spec Review > **Execution Context**: This skill runs in a **subagent** session, delegated by the PAW orchestrator. Return structured feedback (pass/fail + issues) to the orchestrator—do not make orchestration decisions. Review specifications for quality, completeness, and clarity before planning proceeds. Return structured feedback—do not make orchestration decisions. > **Reference**: Follow Core Implementation Principles from `paw-workflow` skill. ## Capabilities - Review Spec.md for quality, completeness, and clarity - Validate against specification quality criteria - Identify specific sections needing revision - Return structured feedback with pass/fail status ## Desired End State After review, the PAW agent receives: - Pass/fail determination - For passing specs: confirmation of readiness for planning (with optional polish suggestions) - For failing specs: specific issues by criterion, affected sections, and suggestions for fixing ## Review Process Evaluate the specification at `.paw/work//Spec.md` against the Quality Criteria Checklist below. For failing items, note the specific issue, identify affected section(s), and suggest what needs to change without prescribing exact wording. ## Quality Criteria Checklist ### Content Quality - [ ] **User value focus**: Describes WHAT & WHY, no implementation details - [ ] **No code artifacts**: No code snippets, file paths, API signatures, class names - [ ] **Story priorities**: Clear priority order (P1 highest, descending) - [ ] **Testable stories**: Each user story is independently testable - [ ] **Acceptance scenarios**: Each story has ≥1 acceptance scenario (Given/When/Then) - [ ] **Edge cases**: Edge conditions and error modes enumerated ### Narrative Quality - [ ] **Overview present**: 2-4 paragraphs of flowing prose (not bullets) - [ ] **Objectives present**: Bulleted behavioral goals (not implementation) - [ ] **User perspective**: Overview and Objectives focus on WHAT/WHY from user viewpoint - [ ] **Specific content**: Uses measurable language, not vague terms - [ ] **No duplication**: Overview doesn't duplicate User Stories/FRs/SCs verbatim ### Requirement Completeness - [ ] **FRs testable**: All functional requirements are observable and testable - [ ] **FRs mapped**: Each FR linked to supporting user stories - [ ] **SCs measurable**: Success criteria are measurable and technology-agnostic - [ ] **SCs linked**: Success criteria reference relevant FR IDs - [ ] **Assumptions documented**: No silently implied assumptions - [ ] **Dependencies listed**: External dependencies and constraints captured ### Ambiguity Control - [ ] **No unresolved questions**: No clarification markers or TBDs in spec body - [ ] **Precise language**: No vague adjectives without metrics (e.g., "fast", "easy") ### Scope & Risk - [ ] **Boundaries defined**: Clear In Scope and Out of Scope sections - [ ] **Risks captured**: Known risks with impact and mitigation noted ### Research Integration (if SpecResearch.md exists) - [ ] **Research incorporated**: System research questions answered or converted to assumptions - [ ] **External questions listed**: Optional external questions preserved for manual completion ## Feedback Guidance **For passing specs**: Indicate readiness for planning. Include minor polish suggestions if any. **For failing specs**: List each failing criterion with the specific issue, affected section(s), and a suggestion for what to fix. Include count of passing vs total criteria. ## Review Guidelines ### Be Specific Instead of: "FRs are incomplete" Say: "FR-003 lacks story mapping. Add (Stories: P2) reference." ### Focus on Criteria Only flag issues that violate a checklist item. Personal preferences don't count unless they affect testability or clarity. ### Don't Rewrite Identify what's wrong and suggest direction. Don't prescribe exact wording—the Spec Agent makes those decisions. ### Context Matters Consider workflow mode when reviewing: - **Full mode**: Expect comprehensive coverage - **Minimal mode**: Accept lighter spec with core FRs only - **Custom mode**: Reference Custom Workflow Instructions for expected depth ## Completion Response Report to PAW agent: pass/fail result, criteria passing count, issues found count, and detailed feedback per Feedback Guidance above. Do NOT make orchestration decisions—return status only. --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/lossyrob) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.