CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ce-brainstorm

Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only unified plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through scope, decide what to build, or needs collaborative product framing before planning. Also use when the user must scope work in territory they say they do not know ("I know nothing about X but need to...") or asks for a blindspot pass — mapping the decision surface before questions begin. Not for executing already-specified work — direct implementation, debugging, or code review where no product scope is left to decide. Not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology, library, or platform — brainstorming scopes what to build, not whether to commit to an outside option.

68

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, deeply sequenced workflow with strong progressive disclosure and validation loops, dragged down only by an actionability ceiling from heavy policy prose and a length that exceeds what a lean overview would carry. Scores reflect conciseness/actionability as its weaker dimensions while workflow clarity and progressive disclosure are excellent.

Suggestions

Move the Phase 0.0 output-mode precedence ladder and Phase 0.4 task-naming rules into a reference file, keeping a one-line summary and gate in the body to trim conciseness overhead.

Compress the inline policy paragraphs (Interaction Rule 4's per-harness enumeration, the coherent-work gate) into terse bullet directives so the body leans more on executable instruction than narrative justification.

Add a short 'Quick path for Lightweight scope' worked example at the top of the Execution Flow so a reader gets an end-to-end executable trace without walking all four phases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and rarely explains concepts Claude already knows, but at ~350 lines and 7,200 words it carries substantial inline policy prose (e.g., the multi-step output-mode precedence in Phase 0.0, the task-naming dissertation in Phase 0.4) that could be tightened or pushed to a reference.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete executable guidance where it matters — the scratch-directory bash block with symlink/ownership guards, exact artifact metadata fields, and file-path templates — but most of the body is policy and routing logic rather than copy-paste-ready instructions, so guidance is instructive rather than executable end-to-end.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The execution flow is explicitly sequenced Phase 0 through Phase 4 with numbered sub-phases, per-phase exit conditions (e.g., Phase 1.3's exit clauses), validation checkpoints (the 'Ready for Planning Check' rerun loop, 'verify before claiming' rule), and explicit error-recovery feedback loops.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

All 17 body references (e.g., references/synthesis-summary.md, references/brainstorm-sections.md, references/agents/slack-researcher.md) and scripts (elevation-dispatch.sh, peer-job-runner.py, visual-probe-server.js) resolve to real bundle files, are one level deep, clearly signaled with their load timing (e.g., 'load the rendering reference at Phase 3, not now'), and keep detail out of the overview.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states what the skill produces, when to use it, and what to avoid, with rich natural trigger phrasing and explicit boundary carve-outs against adjacent skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only unified plan,' 'think through scope, decide what to build,' 'mapping the decision surface before questions begin' — naming the specific artifact produced and the activities performed.

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers what ('Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only unified plan') and when ('Use when the user wants to brainstorm... or needs collaborative product framing before planning'), plus explicit 'Not for...' anti-triggers.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It covers natural user phrasings — 'brainstorm,' 'think through scope,' 'decide what to build,' 'collaborative product framing before planning,' and 'I know nothing about X but need to...' / 'blindspot pass' — the kinds of phrases a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Not for executing already-specified work' and 'Not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology' carve-outs give it a distinct niche from ce-plan and ce-pov, making wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

87%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.