CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

oma-brainstorm

Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before choosing a design. Use when the user requests ideation or design exploration.

Quality

75%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/oma-brainstorm/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%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 a well-sequenced orchestration workflow with explicit validation checkpoints, error-recovery paths, and concrete file/tool specifics, though it never demonstrates the artifacts it asks for (prose brief, design section). Its two real costs are structural redundancy — the same workflow restated in four parallel articulations — and a repeatedly referenced resources/triz-lite.md that is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Consolidate the four parallel workflow articulations (Scenes, Transitions, Canonical workflow path, Execution Phases) into one canonical numbered sequence, keeping the others as brief cross-references, and state "one question at a time" and TRIZ-lite conditions once each.

Fix the dangling reference: either add resources/triz-lite.md to the bundle or remove/repoint the roughly six mentions of it in the body.

Add one short worked example of a prose brief (scenario, mechanism, residual risk, effort) and a design-doc section to make the Step 3/4 outputs concrete.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Individual sections are dense and free of beginner-concept padding, but the same instructions are restated many times: "one question at a time" appears in six places, TRIZ-lite conditions in five, and the whole workflow is articulated four times (Scenes, Transitions, Canonical workflow path, Execution Phases). This fits "mostly efficient but... could be tightened"; it stops short of 2 because each restatement is compact and adds guardrail/pitfall nuance rather than fluffy explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable specifics are given for an instruction-only skill: exact paths ("docs/decisions/{NNN}-{name}.md", "docs/decisions/index.md", ".agents/results/"), a named tool ("brainstorm.option-selection" with matching "--instance" verification), prose-brief format (scenario, mechanism, residual risk, effort), and tiered issue resolution. It is not 5 because no worked example of a prose brief or design section is shown and the option-recording commands are deferred elsewhere ("workflow Step 3 owns the commands").

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced (Entry, Scenes 1-5, numbered Execution Phases 1-7) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: mandatory blind review with Tier 1 resolution before save, section-by-section approval gates, "never infer approval from silence", and a dedicated Failure-and-recovery section (unanswered questions, scope expansion, collapsed alternatives). This matches the top anchor's explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklist-like Common Pitfalls; 4 would require missing checkpoints, which is not the case.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Shared detail is properly pushed to one-level-deep references that are clearly signaled both inline and in a dedicated References section, and the four referenced references/_shared/core/ files exist in the bundle. It is not 5 because "resources/triz-lite.md" is referenced about six times yet does not exist in the bundle (no resources/ directory), a real navigation gap; it stays above 3 because references are clearly signaled and the inline SKILL.md content is appropriate for an orchestration skill.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

67%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 cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it in third person with reasonable specificity. Its main weakness is trigger coverage: the natural words a user would actually say ("brainstorm", "I have an idea") are missing, which limits discoverability and adds mild conflict risk with adjacent planning skills.

Suggestions

Add the user's most natural trigger words to the description, e.g. "Use when the user says 'I have an idea', wants to brainstorm, compare approaches, or explore concepts before planning."

Mention the concrete output (an approved design document saved for downstream planning) in the 'what' clause to sharpen specificity and distinguish it from generic planning skills.

Include a few synonyms such as "design exploration, ideation, brainstorming" so the trigger clause covers common phrasing variations.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before choosing a design" lists several distinct actions (explore goals, explore constraints, compare alternatives, choose a design) with only minor coverage gaps. It is not a 5 because "explore" is more abstract than fully concrete verbs and the description omits key outputs (e.g., the approved design document); it exceeds 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: "Explore goals, constraints, and alternative approaches before choosing a design" (what) and "Use when the user requests ideation or design exploration" (when). It is not 5 because the 'when' clause covers only two trigger conditions rather than concrete trigger phrase variety, and the 'what' side does not mention the produced design artifact; it is above 3 because both what and when are stated explicitly.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The only natural trigger phrases are "ideation" and "design exploration", yet the most common user phrasings — "brainstorm", "I have an idea", "compare approaches" — are absent from the description. This matches "some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms"; it falls short of 4 because the single most natural trigger word for this skill (brainstorm) is missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pre-design framing ("before choosing a design") plus the ideation trigger carves a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against closely related planning/design skills. It is not 5 because broad words like "design" and "explore" could still collide with implementation-design or research skills; it is well above 3 since the ideation/pre-planning positioning is an explicit differentiator.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 5 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

first-fluke/oh-my-agent

Path

skills/oma-brainstorm/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.