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.
74
58%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
75%
1.44xAverage score across 10 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./.opencode/skills/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 being overly broad and vague. While it attempts to establish when to use the skill ('before any creative work'), the scope is so wide it would conflict with most development skills. The actual capabilities ('explores user intent, requirements and design') are abstract and don't convey concrete actions the skill performs.
Suggestions
Replace vague terms with specific actions (e.g., 'Conducts requirements gathering sessions, creates user stories, produces design specifications' instead of 'explores user intent, requirements and design')
Narrow the scope significantly - specify what types of creative work this applies to (e.g., 'new API endpoints', 'UI components', 'database schemas') to reduce conflict with other skills
Add concrete trigger terms users would naturally say, such as 'requirements', 'spec', 'design doc', 'what should I build', 'clarify requirements', 'scope'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Uses vague, abstract language like 'creative work', 'features', 'components', 'functionality' without describing concrete actions. 'Explores user intent, requirements and design' is generic and doesn't specify what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | Has a 'when' clause ('before any creative work - creating features, building components...') but the 'what' is weak - 'Explores user intent, requirements and design' is vague. The trigger guidance exists but is too broad to be useful. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant terms like 'features', 'components', 'building', 'creating' that users might say, but these are overly broad. Missing specific trigger terms that would distinguish this from general development work. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely generic scope - 'creative work', 'features', 'components', 'functionality', 'modifying behavior' would conflict with virtually any development or design skill. No clear niche established. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%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 skill that clearly defines a collaborative design process with good workflow sequencing and validation checkpoints. The main weakness is the lack of concrete examples - showing a sample question sequence, example design section, or template would make it more immediately actionable. The principles section effectively reinforces key behaviors.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 example questions demonstrating the 'one question at a time' and 'multiple choice preferred' principles
Include a brief example of what a 200-300 word design section looks like in practice
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient, with no unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a clear purpose and the bullet points are tight and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides clear process guidance and principles, but lacks concrete examples of questions to ask, sample design section outputs, or specific file templates. The guidance is directional rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The multi-step process is clearly sequenced from understanding through exploration to design presentation and documentation. Includes explicit validation checkpoints ('ask after each section whether it looks right') and feedback loops ('go back and clarify'). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections and appropriate references to other skills (elements-of-style, superpowers:using-git-worktrees, superpowers:writing-plans). Content is appropriately scoped for a SKILL.md overview. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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
- projectbluefin/dakota
- Commit
f062bf8
- 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.