CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

deep-interview

Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating before execution

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/oh-my-codex/skills/deep-interview/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is deep-interview in Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The body is highly actionable with an exceptionally clear phased workflow, exact commands, and explicit validation gates, but it is severely overlong due to heavy rule repetition and does no progressive disclosure at all — every contract, sub-mode, and config detail is inlined in one monolithic file. Deduplication plus splitting into reference files would address both weaknesses without losing the concrete guidance.

Suggestions

Move the omx question payload/answer-shape contracts, the five downstream handoff contracts, the autoresearch sub-mode, and the config/quality-gate reference into separate files under references/ and link to them from the body.

Deduplicate rules stated in multiple sections — the oversized-context summary gate, the answers[] read contract, and one-question-per-round each appear 3-5 times across Execution Policy, Phases, Tool_Usage, and the checklist; state each once authoritatively.

Collapse the Execution Policy section, which overlaps heavily with Phase 2 (pressure ladder, stage priority, oversized-context rules appear in both), into the phase where each rule is applied.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~575-line body is heavily padded with repetition: the oversized-context gate is stated in Execution Policy, Phase 0, Phase 2a, Tool_Usage, and the Final Checklist; the answers[0].answer contract repeats three times; 'one question per round' appears in multiple sections. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (all content is project-specific), so it is not anchor 1, but it is noticeably below the midpoint — roughly half the file is duplicative and could be trimmed.

2 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact commands ('omx state write --input '<json>' --json', 'OMX_QUESTION_RETURN_PANE=$TMUX_PANE omx question'), copy-paste-ready JSON payload and answer-shape contracts, exact artifact paths, weighted ambiguity formulas with explicit coefficients, TOML config keys, and a concrete placeholder-marker list for launch-readiness. Specific examples cover the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit stop conditions, readiness gates (Non-goals, Decision Boundaries), a pressure-pass requirement, blocking quality gates with a refine-and-re-run feedback loop, escalation conditions, a resume path, and a final checklist. Validation checkpoints and error recovery are explicit throughout.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/) and everything is inlined in a single 575-line file: omx question payload contracts, five full downstream-skill handoff contracts, the entire autoresearch sub-mode, the stride-contract JSON schema, and config documentation — all content that clearly belongs in separate reference files. Internal sections are well-labeled, which keeps it above a truly unstructured monolith, but nothing is disclosed progressively across files.

2 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

The description states a clear and distinctive 'what' but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and only gestures at 1-2 concrete capabilities. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural user phrases would lift both completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the request is broad or ambiguous, or the user says deep interview, interview me, don't assume, or clarify requirements.'

Enumerate the concrete outputs (execution-ready spec with intent, non-goals, decision boundaries, acceptance criteria) so the 'what' is comprehensive, not just the interview mechanism.

Include natural synonyms such as 'requirements gathering', 'clarify requirements', and 'ask me everything' to improve trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and 1-2 core mechanisms ('Socratic deep interview', 'mathematical ambiguity gating') but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of the requirements artifacts or spec handoff the skill actually produces. Not 4 because it does not list several specific actions; not 2 because the named actions are concrete rather than generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (Socratic interview with ambiguity gating) but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — 'before execution' only weakly implies timing, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline. Not 4 because the 'when' is entirely implicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'deep interview' and 'interview' are natural phrases a user would say, and 'ambiguity' is relevant, but common variations like 'clarify requirements', 'ask me everything', or 'requirements gathering' are missing. Not 4 because only a couple of natural terms are present.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating' carves a distinct niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills. Not 5 because without explicit triggers it could still overlap with generic planning/interview skills like a lightweight 'plan' skill.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (583 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-codex

Path

plugins/oh-my-codex/skills/deep-interview/SKILL.md

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.