CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

oma-coordination

Coordinate assigned specialist tasks and handoffs manually. Use when supervising a multi-agent project step by step.

Quality

73%

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-coordination/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.

A well-structured coordination guide with a genuinely strong workflow: explicit sequencing, validation checkpoints, error-recovery loops, and concrete CLI commands. Its main weaknesses are duplicated content (spawn examples, routing rules, worktree notes) and references that are inline rather than clearly signaled, which hold back conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Remove one of the two duplicate spawn command blocks (keep it in Step 2 and have "Canonical command path" reference it), and consolidate the simple-task/automated-routing rules that currently appear in both "When NOT to use" and "Transitions".

Replace the per-guardrail duplication of the "--isolation worktree" note (guardrail 5 vs. the CLI options line) with a single mention in one location.

Expand the final "References" section into a consolidated list of all cited bundle files (code-intelligence.md, execution-policy.md, memory-protocol.md, collaboration-policy.md) so each is clearly signaled in one navigable place.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining known concepts and stays skill-specific, but contains clear duplication: the parallel spawn commands appear in both "Canonical command path" and "Step 2", simple-task routing is stated in both "When NOT to use" and "Transitions", and guardrail 5 repeats the "--isolation worktree" note from the CLI options line. It sits between anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) and anchor 2, but the padding is repetition rather than unnecessary explanation, so 3 fits best.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable with concrete commands and real flags ("oma agent spawn backend ... --task-id ... -w ./backend &", "--vendor", "--read-only", "--isolation worktree") and specific artifacts ("oma-config.yaml" fields, "{memoryConfig.basePath}/progress-{agentId}-{taskId}-{runId}-{sessionId}.md"). Not a 5 because commands use unresolved placeholders ("plan.backend_task.id", "<pm-prompt-file>") and are patterns rather than copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Entry, PREPARE/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE scenes, four workflow steps) with explicit validation checkpoints (contract alignment in Step 3, QA review as mandatory final step), a feedback loop ("Resolve blocking defects ... rerun affected checks before finalizing"), a dedicated failure-and-recovery section, and a 7-item guardrail checklist. This matches the anchor-5 example's validate-fix-retry structure; it is clearly above anchor 4, which allows missing checkpoints.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Operational detail is appropriately pushed into bundle files, and all four paths cited in the body (references/_shared/core/code-intelligence.md, collaboration-policy.md, execution-policy.md, references/_shared/runtime/memory-protocol.md) exist with no nested references (one level deep, verified by grep). Not a 5 because the references are mostly buried as inline mentions and the final "References" section lists only one of the four cited files, leaving navigation gaps (including six bundle files never surfaced from SKILL.md).

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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.

A concise, third-person description that explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it, with a reasonably distinctive manual-coordination niche. It is held back by thin capability specificity and a limited set of trigger phrases, leaving overlap risk with an automated orchestrator skill.

Suggestions

Add one or two concrete actions to the what-clause, e.g. "Spawn and monitor PM, frontend, backend, mobile, and QA agents, align API contracts, and run QA review" instead of the generic "coordinate".

Broaden trigger coverage with natural variations users would say, such as "coordinate agents", "orchestrate manually", or "manage specialist handoffs".

State the boundary with the automated alternative in the when-clause, e.g. "Use when supervising a multi-agent project step by step; for fully automated orchestration use the orchestrator skill instead".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Coordinate assigned specialist tasks and handoffs manually" names the domain and about two concrete actions (task coordination, handoffs), but "coordinate" is generic and no further specific capabilities (spawn, monitor, QA review) are listed. This matches anchor 3; it is not anchor 4, which requires several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" ("Coordinate assigned specialist tasks and handoffs manually") and an explicit "when" clause ("Use when supervising a multi-agent project step by step"). It is not capped at 3 because the "Use when..." trigger is explicit, but it falls short of anchor 5 since neither the what nor the when includes concrete trigger phrases like the specialist domains (frontend, backend, QA) or the manual-vs-automated contrast.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"multi-agent project", "step by step", and "supervising" are phrases a user might naturally say, but common variations such as "coordinate agents", "orchestrate", "spawn agents", or "manual execution" are absent. This is anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations) rather than anchor 4 (good coverage with only a few natural terms missing).

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"manually" and "step by step" carve out a manual-supervision niche that is unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, giving mostly distinct triggers. It is not anchor 5 because "multi-agent project" would also naturally trigger a competing orchestrator skill and the description never states the contrast explicitly, and it is above anchor 3 because the manual/step-by-step qualifiers do most of the differentiation work.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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-coordination/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.