CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

oma-design

Define or review a visual system, DESIGN.md, or redesign direction. Use for typography, layout, color, motion, and interaction design decisions.

60

Quality

68%

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 ./.agents/skills/oma-design/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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-structured overview with genuinely specific design guardrails and a clear entry-to-exit flow that delegates detail to annotated one-level references. Its weaknesses are a large block of scheduling boilerplate that inflates token cost without adding actionable guidance, and a heavy reliance on reference files that are not present in the bundle, which makes the checklist and phase model unverifiable.

Suggestions

Collapse or remove the Scheduling metadata block (intent signature, expected inputs/outputs, dependencies, control-flow features) — its content is already covered by When to use, Guardrails, and References, and it costs roughly a third of the body's tokens.

Inline the checklist's key mechanical checks (or at least name them) instead of referencing 'Phase 6 (checklist section 6 mechanical checks)', which points to phases and sections not defined in this file.

Ship the referenced files with the skill or inline the most critical ones (anti-patterns, checklist) — none of the 27 referenced resources/ or reference/ paths exist in the bundle, so the core workflow cannot actually be executed from what is provided.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Line-by-line the writing is terse and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the ~55-line 'Scheduling' block (intent signature, expected inputs/outputs, dependencies, control-flow features, resource scope, preconditions) is orchestration metadata whose content largely duplicates the When-to-use and Guardrails sections. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than 2, since no section is padded prose or a tutorial on known concepts.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guardrails give executable specifics: the exact system font stack ("system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, sans-serif"), a ranked CJK font order ("Pretendard Variable > Noto Sans CJK > system-ui fallback"), a concrete naming format ("Deep Ocean Navy (#1a2332)"), a runnable command ("bunx getdesign@latest list"), and hard rules ("Div-based fake screenshots are banned"). It is not 5 because the canonical workflow path itself is abstract ('Generate or revise DESIGN.md, then run the design checklist') and delegates key operational detail entirely to external files.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Entry, Transitions, Failure and recovery, and Exit give a clear sequence with checkpoints ('If accessibility checks fail, revise before handoff', 'audit against them in Phase 6'). It is not 5 because 'Phase 6 (checklist section 6 mechanical checks)' references phases and checklist sections not defined in this body, leaving the validation loop implicit and delegated to execution-protocol.md and checklist.md; it is above 3 since validation and error-recovery branches are explicitly present.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The References section lists 27 files, each annotated with its purpose (e.g. "resources/redesign-protocol.md: existing-site redesign"), one level deep and clearly signaled, matching 'good structure; most content appropriately placed'. It is not 5 because none of the referenced paths exist in the provided bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories are present, and the referenced resources/ and reference/ directories cannot be verified), and the near-identical directory names 'resources/' and 'reference/' blur navigation.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 strong natural trigger terms for visual design work. Its main gaps are limited action coverage (only 'define or review') and the absence of several documented use cases and boundary signals that would sharpen triggering.

Suggestions

Broaden the action verbs to cover documented capabilities, e.g. 'Define, audit, or redesign a project's visual system and DESIGN.md'.

Add missing trigger scenarios from the body's When-to-use list, such as 'UI quality audits', 'accessibility review', or 'redesigning an existing site'.

Signal the boundary with implementation skills, e.g. 'Use for design decisions, not frontend implementation'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("visual system, DESIGN.md, or redesign direction") and two concrete actions ("Define or review"), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions that are not comprehensive. It is not a 4 because it omits capabilities the body demonstrates (auditing DESIGN.md, accessibility review, component guidance), and not a 2 because the actions and artifacts named are concrete rather than generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

It answers both parts: what ("Define or review a visual system, DESIGN.md, or redesign direction") and when ("Use for typography, layout, color, motion, and interaction design decisions") in third person. It is not 5 because the 'when' clause is a domain list rather than explicit trigger scenarios (e.g. redesigning an existing site, auditing UI quality) that the body itself lists as core use cases; it is clearly above 3 since both what and when are explicitly stated.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"typography, layout, color, motion, and interaction design decisions" plus "DESIGN.md" and "redesign" give good natural keyword coverage a user would plausibly say. It falls short of the 5 anchor because common synonyms and variations are missing ("design system", "UI audit", "branding", "fonts"), and sits above 3 because several distinct natural terms are present.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The design-focused triggers (visual system, DESIGN.md, typography, motion) form a clear niche distinct from generic skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not 5 because it does not signal the boundary with the closely related frontend-implementation skill (oma-frontend), so a request like 'make this page look better' could trigger either.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
first-fluke/oh-my-agent
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.