CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

he-ideate

Generate and compare grounded product or engineering directions with tradeoffs. Use when users want possibilities, critique, or direction-setting before a spec.

50

Quality

54%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./Plugins/harness-engineering/fixtures/budget-archive/2026-04-21/deferred-store/skills/team_automation/he-ideate/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a reasonable conceptual framework for generating and comparing product/engineering directions, with a clear procedure and useful anti-patterns section. However, it lacks concrete, actionable specifics—no output schema example, no demonstration of what a grounded ideation output looks like, and no real progressive disclosure despite claiming to be an entry point. The guidance remains at an abstract instructional level rather than providing executable, copy-paste-ready artifacts.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example showing a complete input-to-output cycle: a sample request, the generated candidate pool, the adversarial filtering with rejection reasons, and the final ranked output with tradeoffs.

Define and include the actual `schema_version: 1` output schema (JSON or YAML) so Claude knows exactly what structured output to produce.

Link to actual bundle files for detailed reference material (e.g., a REFERENCE.md for the structured output format, or an EXAMPLES.md with worked examples) to fulfill the progressive disclosure promise.

Add explicit recovery steps in the validation section—when a gate fails, what specific corrective action should be taken before retrying, rather than just 'stop at first failed gate.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The content is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary filler. The 'Progressive Disclosure Entry' header and its explanation add little value. The 'Full Context' section with icon assets is irrelevant noise. Some bullet points could be tightened, but overall it avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

The procedure provides a clear sequence of steps, but they remain abstract and lack concrete examples of what 'shallow codebase scan' means, what the structured output schema looks like, or how to actually perform adversarial filtering. No executable code, commands, or concrete output templates are provided—just directional guidance.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The procedure has a clear 6-step sequence and the validation section provides gate checks with a 'fail fast' instruction. However, the validation steps are checklist-style assertions rather than explicit feedback loops (e.g., what to do when repo grounding is insufficient, or how to recover from a failed gate beyond just stopping). For a process involving multi-step ideation and filtering, the lack of concrete recovery paths limits this to a 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill claims to be a 'Progressive Disclosure Entry' but no bundle files are provided, and the only references are to icon assets (not operational content). There are mentions of routing to 'he-brainstorm' but no links to related skill files. The 'Full Context' section references only images. The content is essentially monolithic with no meaningful navigation to deeper materials.

1 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 has a solid structure with an explicit 'Use when' clause that clearly separates the 'what' from the 'when,' which is its main strength. However, the capabilities described remain somewhat abstract—it would benefit from more concrete action terms and deliverables. The trigger terms cover some natural language but miss common variations users might employ.

Suggestions

Add more concrete action terms and deliverables, e.g., 'Generate option matrices, pros/cons analyses, and feasibility comparisons for product or engineering directions.'

Expand trigger term coverage with natural user phrases like 'brainstorm approaches,' 'explore alternatives,' 'pros and cons,' 'technical strategy,' or 'decision framework.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a domain (product/engineering directions) and some actions (generate, compare, tradeoffs), but the actions remain somewhat abstract—'grounded product or engineering directions' is not as concrete as listing specific deliverables like 'option matrices, pros/cons tables, feasibility analyses.'

2 / 3

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both 'what' (generate and compare grounded product or engineering directions with tradeoffs) and 'when' (when users want possibilities, critique, or direction-setting before a spec), with a clear 'Use when' clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes some relevant terms like 'possibilities,' 'critique,' 'direction-setting,' and 'tradeoffs,' but misses many natural user phrases such as 'brainstorm options,' 'explore alternatives,' 'pros and cons,' 'decision framework,' 'technical approach,' or 'strategy comparison.'

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scope is somewhat specific to pre-spec direction-setting, which helps, but terms like 'critique' and 'possibilities' are broad enough to overlap with general brainstorming, product management, or strategy skills. The phrase 'before a spec' adds some distinctiveness but the overall domain boundary is fuzzy.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
jscraik/Agent-Skills
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.