oma-pm

Product manager that decomposes requirements into actionable tasks with priorities and dependencies. Use for planning, requirements, specification, scope, prioritization, task breakdown, and ISO 21500, ISO 31000, or ISO 38500-aligned planning recommendations.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/oma-pm/SKILL.md

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.

A well-structured planning skill with a clear sequenced workflow, explicit validation and recovery, and concrete guardrails, but it carries abstract meta-framework scaffolding that dilutes conciseness and relies on external files for the actual plan schema.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the 'Logical Operations' meta-framework tables (SSL primitives, Resource scope, Preconditions, Effects/side-effects) that restate the workflow in abstract terms without adding planning value.

Inline a minimal concrete example of a task object (agent, title, priority, dependencies, acceptance criteria) so the output shape is actionable without opening resources/task-template.json.

Consolidate the References list and separate in-skill resources from cross-skill shared/orchestrator paths so navigation is clearer.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and focused on the planning process, but carries noticeable meta-framework ceremony (the 'SSL primitive' actions table, 'Resource scope' MEMORY/LOCAL_FS/CODEBASE table, preconditions, and effects/side-effects) that is abstract scaffolding rather than concrete planning guidance and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Guardrails give concrete per-task requirements ('Every task has: agent, title, acceptance criteria, priority tier... dependencies, scope'), the canonical workflow path names exact artifact paths, and common pitfalls give before/after examples; the main gap is that the actual plan/task schema is referenced externally rather than shown inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The PREPARE/REASON/ACT/VERIFY/FINALIZE scenes give a clear sequence with an explicit VERIFY validation checkpoint and a dedicated failure-and-recovery section, but the checkpoints are framed as abstract scene labels rather than concrete validation commands, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body acts as an overview pointing to a well-organized, mostly one-level-deep reference list (execution-protocol, examples, iso-planning, task-template, etc.); the gap is the large volume of references and several cross-skill paths (../_shared/, ../oma-orchestrator/) that complicate navigation.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 strong description that explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it, with good natural trigger terms and third-person voice; it is slightly held back by naming only one composite action and by broad terms that create minor overlap with adjacent planning skills.

Suggestions

List a couple more concrete actions (e.g., 'define API contracts and data models', 'sequence tasks for parallel execution') to lift specificity from one composite action to several.

Add a natural synonym or two such as 'roadmap' or 'milestones' to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain ('Product manager') and a core concrete action ('decomposes requirements into actionable tasks with priorities and dependencies'), but describes essentially one composite action rather than a list of several specific actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the 4-anchor's 'several specific actions'.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does ('decomposes requirements into actionable tasks with priorities and dependencies') and gives an explicit 'Use for ...' clause with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both what and when.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'planning, requirements, specification, scope, prioritization, task breakdown' are natural terms a user would say, plus ISO standard names; a few common synonyms (roadmap, milestones, epics) are missing, fitting the 'good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing' anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The product-manager planning niche and ISO alignment give it a mostly distinct identity, but broad terms like 'planning', 'requirements', and 'scope' create minor overlap risk with general project-management or architecture skills rather than the minimal conflict risk of a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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
Path: .agents/skills/oma-pm/SKILL.md
Commit: 032c988

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.