CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

openspec-explore

Enter explore mode - a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements. Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change.

81

1.04x
Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.04x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

The body is actionable and well-sequenced for a stance skill, with concrete commands, file paths, and a capture table. It loses points on conciseness due to repeated stance restatements and on progressive disclosure since it is a single long inline document with no reference layering.

Suggestions

Consolidate the redundant stance statements ("The Stance", "What You Don't Have To Do", "Guardrails") into one section to cut repetition.

Move the four long ASCII dialogue examples into a reference file (e.g. EXAMPLES.md) and keep one short illustrative example inline.

Tighten or trim the ASCII art boxes, which consume significant tokens for largely stylistic effect.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and assumption-respecting, but the stance is restated across "The Stance", "What You Don't Have To Do", and "Guardrails", and the long ASCII dialog blocks pad the token budget beyond what the core guidance needs.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: the `openspec list --json` command, specific artifact paths, an insight-to-artifact capture table, and example offer phrasings.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Deliberately a stance rather than a workflow, yet the "When a change exists" section gives a clear 1–4 numbered sequence; no validation checkpoint is needed for a non-destructive thinking activity, and the single core action is unambiguous.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into labeled sections but monolithic: ~275 lines all inline with no external references or progressive layering, and the illustrative dialogues are not split out despite the file's length.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 is well-formed with an explicit "Use when" trigger and a clear what/when pair, but its action list and trigger-term coverage are only moderately specific. It is distinguishable but not strongly niched against general ideation skills.

Suggestions

Expand trigger terms to natural variations users say: "brainstorm", "talk through an idea", "spike", "whiteboard a problem".

Replace the abstract "thinking partner" framing with more concrete capabilities (e.g. "maps architecture, compares options, surfaces risks").

Tie the trigger more tightly to OpenSpec so it cannot fire for generic brainstorming unrelated to a change.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (explore mode) and three concrete actions ("exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements"), but "thinking partner" is somewhat abstract and the actions are not as concrete as a fully enumerated capability list.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both what ("a thinking partner for exploring ideas, investigating problems, and clarifying requirements") and when with an explicit "Use when the user wants to think through something before or during a change" clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"think through something" and "explore"/"investigate" are natural terms, but coverage is narrow and lacks common variations users might say (e.g. "brainstorm", "talk through", "spike").

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Explore mode" tied to OpenSpec changes is a recognizable niche, but the general "thinking partner" framing could overlap with generic brainstorming or planning skills.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
arm/mlia
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.