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.

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.cursor/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

78%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.

This is a well-structured, instruction-only skill body: the multi-step dialogue workflow is clearly sequenced with built-in validation checkpoints, and the simple-skill exception fully applies to its organization. Its main weaknesses are minor repetition across sections and the absence of example questions that would make the guidance copy-paste concrete.

Suggestions

Deduplicate guidance that appears in both The Process and Key Principles (one-question-at-a-time, 200-300 word sections, go-back-and-clarify) by keeping the process steps operational and the principles non-overlapping.

Add one example multiple-choice question and one example open-ended question to make the questioning technique concrete rather than described.

State an explicit exit criterion for the understanding phase instead of 'Once you believe you understand', e.g., 'understanding is complete when purpose, constraints, and success criteria are all known'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no concept-explaining padding, but 'Ask questions one at a time' and '200-300 words' each appear twice, and 'Be flexible - Go back and clarify when something doesn't make sense' duplicates 'Be ready to go back and clarify'.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable specifics are given (file path template 'docs/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md', 'Propose 2-3 different approaches', the literal question 'Ready to set up for implementation?'), though no example questions or sample multiple-choice prompts are provided.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear three-phase sequence (understanding, exploring approaches, presenting the design) with an explicit per-section checkpoint ('Ask after each section whether it looks right so far') and a feedback loop ('Be ready to go back and clarify'), but the exit criterion for the understanding phase is left implicit ('Once you believe you understand').	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files, and is organized into clearly headed sections (Overview, The Process, After the Design, Key Principles), which the rubric's simple-skill exception explicitly scores at 5; skill cross-references are clearly signaled.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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.

The description has an explicit and well-structured 'when' clause with natural trigger phrases, but its 'what' is thin, it uses second-person voice (a rubric-mandated specificity penalty), and its trigger scope is broad enough to collide with related planning skills. It is a solid, usable description that falls just short of the rubric's exemplar quality.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person to avoid the specificity penalty (e.g., 'Explores user intent, requirements, and design before any creative work such as creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior').

Enrich the 'what' beyond one abstract action, e.g., 'Asks clarifying questions one at a time, proposes 2-3 approaches with trade-offs, and presents the validated design in reviewable sections'.

Narrow the trigger scope or add distinguishing qualifiers (e.g., 'before starting implementation of new features or component work') to reduce overlap with general planning/implementation skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several concrete actions ('creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior', 'Explores user intent, requirements and design'), which fits the 4 anchor, but the rubric mandates a 1-point penalty for second-person voice ('You MUST use this'), lowering it to 3.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' ('Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation') and an explicit 'when' with a trigger list ('before any creative work - creating features...') are present, but the 'what' is a single thin action rather than the comprehensive multi-action coverage of the 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Triggers like 'creating features', 'building components', and 'modifying behavior' are phrases users naturally say, giving good keyword coverage, though common variants like 'brainstorm', 'design', 'new feature', or 'implement' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The pre-implementation exploration niche ('Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation') is recognizable, but the trigger scope 'any creative work' plus feature/component/behavior changes overlaps heavily with planning and implementation skills.	3 / 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: revokslab/ShipFree
Path: .cursor/skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md
Commit: 94c4be7

Reviewed: 7 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.