brainstorm-with-file
Interactive brainstorming with documented thought evolution, multi-perspective analysis, and iterative refinement. Serial execution with no agent delegation.
47
36%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.codex/skills/brainstorm-with-file/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 identifies the core domain (brainstorming) and mentions some differentiating features like thought evolution and multi-perspective analysis, but these remain abstract rather than concrete. The biggest weakness is the complete absence of a 'Use when...' clause, making it unclear when Claude should select this skill. The implementation detail about 'serial execution with no agent delegation' wastes space on information irrelevant to skill selection.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'brainstorm', 'generate ideas', 'explore options', 'think through a problem', 'ideation session'.
Replace abstract phrases like 'documented thought evolution' and 'multi-perspective analysis' with concrete actions such as 'generates and evaluates ideas from multiple angles, tracks how ideas evolve, and iteratively refines the best options'.
Remove the implementation detail 'Serial execution with no agent delegation' as it does not help with skill selection and replace it with user-facing context about when this skill is appropriate.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (brainstorming) and some actions (documented thought evolution, multi-perspective analysis, iterative refinement), but these are somewhat abstract rather than concrete, specific actions. 'Documented thought evolution' and 'multi-perspective analysis' are more conceptual than actionable. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (brainstorming with thought evolution and multi-perspective analysis) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' should cap completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also somewhat weak, so this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes 'brainstorming' which is a natural keyword users would say, but misses common variations like 'ideation', 'idea generation', 'creative thinking', 'explore ideas', or 'think through'. 'Serial execution with no agent delegation' is implementation jargon, not user-facing language. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Brainstorming' is somewhat specific but could overlap with general creative writing, problem-solving, or ideation skills. The mention of 'multi-perspective analysis' and 'iterative refinement' adds some distinction but these terms are broad enough to conflict with analytical or research skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
39%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has excellent workflow design with clear phase sequencing, validation checkpoints, and error recovery, but suffers severely from verbosity and poor progressive disclosure. At 600+ lines in a single file, it overwhelms the context window with implementation pseudocode, reference tables, and explanatory content that could be dramatically condensed or split into supporting files. The pseudocode, while structurally detailed, is not truly executable and references many undefined helper functions.
Suggestions
Reduce the SKILL.md to ~150 lines by extracting implementation details (Phase 0-4 pseudocode), reference tables (dimensions, perspectives, modes, collaboration patterns), and templates into separate bundle files referenced with clear links.
Remove explanatory content Claude already knows — brainstorming concepts, what perspectives mean, 'Best Practices' advice like 'Clear Topic Definition: Detailed topics lead to better dimension identification', and the 'When to Use' comparison section.
Either make the code examples truly executable with defined helper functions, or replace pseudocode blocks with concise step descriptions that focus on what to do rather than showing skeleton code with undefined functions.
Consolidate the Recording Protocol, Round Documentation Pattern, and Narrative Synthesis Format into a single compact template file rather than repeating format specifications inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose at ~600+ lines. Extensively explains brainstorming concepts, perspective definitions, collaboration patterns, and workflow mechanics that Claude already understands. Massive amounts of pseudocode, JSON schemas, and tables that could be dramatically condensed. The 'When to Use' section, 'Best Practices' section, and dimension/perspective reference tables add significant bloat. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides detailed pseudocode and JSON schemas showing structure, but the code is not truly executable — it references undefined functions (identifyDimensions, generateFocusOptions, assessCoverage, formatIdeaMarkdown, readJson, appendToBrainstorm, Write) and uses template variables without clear resolution. The workflow steps are concrete in intent but rely on pseudocode patterns rather than copy-paste ready implementations. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step workflow is exceptionally well-sequenced with clear phase progression (Seed → Explore → Refine → Converge → Gate), explicit validation checkpoints (Initial Idea Coverage Check, Record-Before-Continue Rule, MANDATORY Terminal Gate), feedback loops (max 6 refinement rounds with converge exit), and error handling tables. The Recording Protocol ensures state is captured at each decision point. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no bundle files to offload content to. The entire specification — implementation details, templates, reference tables, error handling, best practices, collaboration patterns, context overflow protection — is crammed into a single massive SKILL.md. Content like the Brainstorm Dimensions table, Collaboration Patterns, Context Overflow Protection, and detailed phase implementation code should be in separate referenced files. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
skill_md_line_count | SKILL.md is long (1067 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- catlog22/Claude-Code-Workflow
- Commit
227244f
- 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.