CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

brain-ops

Brain knowledge base operations. The core read/write cycle: brain-first lookup, read-enrich-write loop, source attribution, ambient enrichment, back-linking. Read this before any brain interaction.

Quality

74%

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 ./skills/brain-ops/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 delivers highly actionable, domain-specific operational detail with a clear phased workflow and genuine error-recovery loops. It is held back by inline bloat — dense blockquoted protocol digressions and version-gated caveats in the mainline — and by inlining material that the referenced convention/protocol docs should carry.

Suggestions

Move the long blockquoted digressions (MEMORY_VERBS contract, redaction handling, visibility/readback rules, keyless-brain extraction) into the docs they already cite (e.g. docs/protocol/MEMORY_VERBS_v1.md) and keep one-line summaries with the reference link in SKILL.md.

Add a concrete write-path example — an actual put_page or remember invocation with arguments and a readback check — to match the read path's copy-paste quality.

Collect version-gated details (gbrain >= 0.43, MEMORY_VERBS v1, v0.18.0+ citation format, schema-pack overrides) into a single version-compatibility section, and trim the shallow-ls anecdote to the rule plus the two verification commands.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Nearly all content is system-specific (gbrain CLI flags, MCP paths) with no generic-concept padding, but the ~255-line body could be tightened: the 'Real example: a shallow ls counted 132 files' war story, dense nested parentheticals in the MEMORY_VERBS blockquote, and version-gated details ('v0.43+', 'MEMORY_VERBS v1', 'v0.18.0+') woven inline rather than in a deprecated/old-patterns section.

3 / 5

Actionability

Abundant copy-paste-ready commands with exact flags and a fully worked example ('gbrain recall --query zebra telescope --budget-tokens 75 --budget-policy query_first --json', 'find <dir> -name "*.md" | wc -l'). Not 5 because the write path — put_page / remember invocations, the skill's core cycle — never receives a concrete example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1–4 are clearly sequenced with numbered steps, explicit error-recovery loops (revision_conflict re-read/merge/retry, write_pending polling) and a readback confirmation checkpoint. Not 5 because some checkpoints remain implicit — Phase 2 never states how to verify a write landed; that lives separately in 'Output Format'.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep ('See skills/conventions/brain-first.md', 'Contract: docs/protocol/MEMORY_VERBS_v1.md'), but reference-grade protocol detail (verb contract, redaction semantics, visibility matrix, keyless-brain extraction) is inlined rather than deferred to the cited docs, and none of the referenced files exist in this skill's bundle.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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: third person, concise, names five concrete operations, and includes an explicit read-trigger clause. Its main limits are jargon-compressed action terms and a categorical rather than phrase-level trigger, with slight overlap risk against adjacent memory skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'brain-first lookup, read-enrich-write loop, source attribution, ambient enrichment, back-linking' — with minor coverage gaps. Not 5 because terms like 'ambient enrichment' and 'read-enrich-write loop' are compressed jargon rather than self-evident concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' (the core read/write cycle and its five named operations) and 'when' via 'Read this before any brain interaction', which counts as equivalent trigger guidance. Not 5 because the 'when' is a broad category rather than concrete trigger phrases like 'when the user says remember this'.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes good natural keyword coverage for the domain: 'brain', 'knowledge base', 'lookup', 'read/write', 'citation'. Not 5 because common user synonyms such as 'remember', 'recall', 'memory', or 'notes' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Brain knowledge base operations' carves a clear niche with distinct triggers tied to the 'brain' noun. Not 5 because 'knowledge base' and the generic read/write verbs carry minor overlap risk with closely related memory/query skills in the same ecosystem.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 2 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

garrytan/gbrain

Path

skills/brain-ops/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.