CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

oma-market

Research customer pain points, trends, and competitors through the OMA market engine. Use for market discovery or voice-of-customer analysis.

61

Quality

71%

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-market/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-structured orchestration contract with genuinely executable commands, explicit validation gates, and thorough failure handling for every failure mode. Its weaknesses are token duplication of the same workflow across the Structural Flow, Logical Operations, and canonical-path sections, and a command example that is not fully self-contained.

Suggestions

Consolidate the workflow into one authoritative telling: the Entry steps, PREPARE scene, and Actions table restate the same sequence; keep the Actions table (or the Scenes) and drop the duplicated narrative to cut token spend.

Make the canonical command path self-contained by defining "$QUERY_PLAN_FILE" or showing how the query plan file is produced in the upstream Step 0.75.

Defer the framework auto-toggle rules (pain/trend → SWOT, competitor → SWOT + 5F, discovery → SWOT + PESTEL) entirely to "resources/intent-rules.md" instead of stating them in both the Scheduling and Structural Flow sections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body explains nothing Claude already knows and uses compact tables, but the same workflow is restated four times (Entry steps, the PREPARE scene, the Actions table, and the canonical command path) with intent and framework details repeated across sections; this fits anchor 3 ("mostly efficient but could be tightened") rather than anchor 4 because the cross-section duplication goes beyond minor trimming.

3 / 5

Actionability

Commands are concrete throughout ("oma market detect-trap \"$TOPIC\"", "oma market resolve --json", exit codes, "--emit=compact", 5-minute timeout, exact output paths), but the canonical command path contains an undefined "$QUERY_PLAN_FILE" and an ellipsis comment for upstream steps; this matches anchor 4 ("mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps") rather than 5 because the example is not fully self-contained.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (numbered Entry and Scenes) with validation gates up front (detect-trap exit 2/REFUSE, "oma market resolve" ok check), a self-check before writing the brief, a dedicated failure-and-recovery section covering each failure mode verbatim ("report stderr verbatim"), and defined exit criteria, matching the anchor for explicit validation with error-recovery feedback loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The References section signals every resource with its purpose at one level deep ("load only the selected framework") and the body points to them at the right moments, but framework auto-toggle and intent-routing detail is duplicated inline and the referenced "resources/" files are not present in the bundle to verify; this matches anchor 4 ("good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps") rather than 5 because of the inline duplication and unverifiable reference targets.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

The description clearly states what the skill does and gives an explicit "Use for" trigger clause with natural market-research vocabulary. Its main weakness is the generic single verb "Research", which leaves the capability description at the level of naming targets rather than concrete actions, and a when-clause that does not cover all the named intents.

Suggestions

Replace the generic verb with distinct concrete actions, e.g. "Extract customer pain points from community posts, detect category trends, and run competitor sentiment analysis through the OMA market engine."

Extend the when-clause to cover all named intents with concrete trigger phrases, e.g. "Use when the user mentions pain points, user complaints, what's trending in a category, or how a product compares to competitors."

Add common synonyms such as "market research", "competitive analysis", or "customer feedback" to broaden natural trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Research customer pain points, trends, and competitors" names the domain and three research targets but relies on a single generic verb with no concrete mechanism or output actions, matching the anchor for naming a domain with 1-2 concrete actions rather than the several distinct action verbs of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both what ("Research customer pain points, trends, and competitors through the OMA market engine") and when ("Use for market discovery or voice-of-customer analysis") are explicit, but the when-clause omits the trend and competitor scenarios the what-clause names and lacks concrete trigger phrases, so it falls short of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"customer pain points", "trends", "competitors", "market discovery", and "voice-of-customer" are phrases users would naturally say, but common synonyms such as "market research", "competitive analysis", or "user complaints" are absent, fitting the good-but-incomplete keyword coverage of anchor 4.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche of community-signal market research through a specific engine is distinct with targeted triggers (pain points, voice-of-customer, market discovery), though it carries minor overlap risk with general research or web-search skills, matching anchor 4.

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.