brainstorming

Use when starting any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior — before writing any implementation code.

Quality

65%

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 ./skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%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-sequenced, highly actionable brainstorming workflow with strong validation checkpoints, undermined by repetitive gate enforcement and broken cross-file references that leave the bundled scripts orphaned.

Suggestions

Consolidate the gate enforcement (HARD-GATE, Anti-Pattern, Rationalization Table, Red Flags) into one section to remove the repeated restatements.

Fix progressive disclosure: add the missing spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md and visual-companion.md to the bundle, or remove the references, and link the existing scripts/ files from the Visual Companion section.

Drop the dot process-flow diagram or the checklist so the sequence is stated once rather than duplicated.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core process guidance is efficient and actionable, but the gate is restated across five sections (HARD-GATE, Anti-Pattern, Rationalization Table, Red Flags, Key Principles) and the dot diagram duplicates the checklist, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout — numbered checklist, exact spec path docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md, four explicit spec self-review checks, and quoted message templates for the user-review and visual-companion offers; minor gaps like the high-level "Explore project context" step.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 9-item checklist backed by a process-flow diagram with explicit decision diamonds ("User approves design?", "User reviews spec?") and feedback loops (revise, changes requested), plus validation checkpoints (per-section approval, spec self-review, user review gate).	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Internal section structure is clear, but cross-file navigation is broken: the body references spec-document-reviewer-prompt.md and skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md which are absent, while the provided scripts/ bundle (server.cjs, helper.js, frame-template.html, start/stop scripts) is never referenced from the overview.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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, explicit trigger ("Use when ... before writing any implementation code") with good natural keywords, but it omits the "what" from the description text and its listed actions are overlapping synonyms rather than distinct concrete capabilities.

Suggestions

Lead with a brief "what" clause, e.g. "Turns ideas into approved design specs ... Use when starting any creative work ...", so the description answers both what and when.

Replace overlapping verbs with more distinct triggers (e.g. add "designing a feature", "planning a refactor") to broaden natural keyword coverage.

Tighten the action list so the named capabilities are clearly different rather than restatements of "writing code".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several actions ("creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior") but they are near-synonyms for writing code rather than distinct concrete operations, so coverage is generic rather than comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description answers "when" explicitly and concretely ("Use when starting any creative work ... before writing any implementation code") but never states what the skill does; the "what" lives only in the body, and per the scoring guideline it must not be inferred.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "creating features", "building components", "adding functionality", and "modifying behavior" are natural things users say, giving good keyword coverage, though a few synonyms (e.g. refactoring, new feature) are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The "before writing any implementation code" qualifier carves out a distinct pre-implementation design niche, leaving only minor overlap risk with closely related build/design skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: lucianghinda/superpowers-ruby
Path: skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md
Commit: 99fac3d

Reviewed: 4 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.