brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
66
51%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
89%
1.12xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./data/01-productmanager-brainstorming/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description suffers from extreme breadth and vagueness. It attempts to claim priority over nearly all creative/development work ('You MUST use this before any creative work') without clearly articulating what specific actions the skill performs. The imperative tone ('You MUST') is unusual and the scope is so broad it would conflict with most other skills in a multi-skill environment.
Suggestions
Narrow the scope by specifying what kind of exploration this skill performs (e.g., 'Conducts structured requirements gathering through clarifying questions, generates design proposals with tradeoff analysis, and produces specification documents before implementation begins').
Replace the overly broad trigger clause with specific, distinguishable triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user requests a new feature, asks for a design review, or needs help clarifying requirements before coding').
Remove the imperative 'You MUST' phrasing and use third person voice to describe capabilities, which also helps distinguish this from a system instruction rather than a skill description.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague language like 'creative work', 'creating features', 'building components', 'adding functionality', and 'modifying behavior' without specifying concrete actions the skill performs. 'Explores user intent, requirements and design' is abstract and doesn't list specific capabilities. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' is addressed ('before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior') and the 'what' is loosely stated ('Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation'). However, the 'what' is vague and the 'when' is overly broad rather than providing explicit, targeted triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Terms like 'creating features', 'building components', 'adding functionality', and 'modifying behavior' are somewhat relevant keywords a user might use, but they are extremely broad and could apply to almost any development task. Missing more specific natural language triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | This description is extremely generic and would conflict with virtually any development, design, or planning skill. 'Creating features', 'building components', 'adding functionality', and 'modifying behavior' cover nearly all software development tasks, making it impossible to distinguish from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured process skill with clear workflow sequencing and good progressive disclosure. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete examples (sample questions, sample design output, document template) and some redundancy between the process description and key principles. The unexplained switch to Chinese in the Documenting section is jarring and may confuse usage in English-language contexts.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a good multiple-choice question and a sample 200-300 word design section to make the skill more actionable.
Remove or consolidate the Key Principles section since most points duplicate guidance already given in The Process section.
Either fully commit to bilingual content with clear rationale, or keep the Documenting section in English — the current mixed Chinese/English feels inconsistent and unexplained.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary padding. The mixed Chinese/English documentation section feels abrupt and could be tighter. Some bullet points restate obvious things (e.g., 'Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense'). The Key Principles section largely repeats what was already stated in The Process section. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides a clear conversational process but lacks concrete examples. No example questions, no example design section output, no example multiple-choice format, and no template for the design document. The file path pattern `docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` is a good concrete detail, but overall the guidance is more procedural than executable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced: understand context → ask questions → explore approaches → present design in sections → document → optionally implement. Each phase has clear actions and the incremental validation pattern (present 200-300 word sections, check after each) serves as an effective feedback loop throughout the design process. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections (Overview, Process, After the Design, Key Principles). References to other skills (elements-of-style, using-git-worktrees, writing-plans) are one level deep and clearly signaled. The content is appropriately sized for a SKILL.md without needing external files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data
- Commit
3dd3ac0
- 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.