CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

he-brainstorm

Define problem scope, requirements, and decision options before spec or plan stages. Use when the user has ambiguity in what to build, why it matters, or which direction to choose.

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 ./Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/team_automation/he-brainstorm/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

58%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 operational core is strong — a clearly sequenced 13-step procedure with explicit validation gates and concrete decision rules — but it is wrapped in roughly 40% redundant section-level repetition, and the progressive-disclosure layer is broken: the skill's central promise of archived full guides points almost entirely at nonexistent files while its one real reference goes unlinked.

Suggestions

Merge the duplicated trigger lists in "Use" and "When to use" into a single section, and collapse Outputs/Validation/Anti-patterns items that restate Procedure steps, cutting the body by roughly a third without losing any rule.

Fix the "Full Context" section against the actual bundle: remove links to nonexistent files (SKILL.full.md, the four references/*.md guides, Infrastructure/references/*, ../../../references/*, ./assets) and link the one real reference, references/context-preservation.md.

Inline a short worked example of a requirements artifact (frontmatter with spec_required/risk_level/complexity, two R-ID requirements, one blocker) so the Outputs contract is concrete even though the requirements-artifact-guide reference is dead.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Several padded sections duplicate each other: "Use" restates "When to use" nearly verbatim, Outputs items restate Procedure steps 10–13 and Validation items, Anti-patterns mirror Constraints/Validation, and "Full Context" contains junk lines ("Assets directory marker: `assets/`", "Compatibility mirror (non-canonical)"). This is anchor 2 ('several unnecessary... padded sections') — more than the 'some tightening' of anchor 3, though individual bullets are lean so not anchor 1.

2 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance throughout: enumerated values ("spec_required: none|lite|full", "risk_level: low|medium|high"), a default artifact path "docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-requirements.md", stable R1/R2 identifier rules, and specific routing targets (he-fix-bugs, ~/.codex/agents/manifest.json). Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4: "Run a light repo/context scan" is vague, and no worked example of a requirements artifact survives in the body because its reference link is dead — anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases' is not met.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The 13-step Procedure is clearly sequenced (assess → classify → clarify → scan → pressure-test → options → derive values → capture → hand off) with an explicit Validation checklist, a blocking gate (step 12: Resolve Before Planning blockers stop handoff), and "Fail fast: stop at first failed gate and do not proceed" — clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and feedback loops matching anchor 5. The skill is conversational, not destructive/batch, so the workflow-cap rule does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body claims to be a "Progressive Disclosure Entry" that "keeps the full operational workflow in archived references", but nearly every reference is dead: ./SKILL.full.md, all four named references/*.md guides, ./Infrastructure/references/*, ./../../../references/* (paths escaping three levels above the skill directory), and ./assets do not exist in the bundle, while the one real bundle file (references/context-preservation.md) is never linked. The body itself is well-sectioned (not a monolithic wall of text), so this lands at anchor 2 ('references are buried'/non-functional structure) rather than anchor 1.

2 / 5

Total

13

/

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 well-constructed description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, concrete natural-language triggers, and third-person voice. The main weaknesses are incomplete action coverage relative to the skill's full scope and the absence of the skill's most natural trigger term, "brainstorm".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Define problem scope, requirements, and decision options" names the domain plus a few actions, but coverage is not comprehensive — the body's major capabilities (requirements artifact output, QA-ambiguity routing, pressure-testing) are absent, which fits anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's 'minor gaps'.

3 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers what ("Define problem scope, requirements, and decision options before spec or plan stages") and when ("Use when the user has ambiguity in what to build, why it matters, or which direction to choose") with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5 exactly. Third-person voice is used throughout, so no voice penalty applies.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "ambiguity in what to build", "why it matters", and "which direction to choose" give good coverage, but the most natural user term — "brainstorm", the skill's own name — plus synonyms like "unclear requirements" are missing, matching anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pre-spec positioning with ambiguity-focused triggers is a distinct niche, but "define requirements" carries minor overlap risk with general requirements-gathering or spec-writing skills, matching anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.

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

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 9 missing, 3 deeper-than-1-level, 5 suspicious

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository

jscraik/Agent-Skills

Path

Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/team_automation/he-brainstorm/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.