brainstorming

tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill brainstorming

Use this skill before any creative or constructive work (features, components, architecture, behavior changes, or functionality). This skill transforms vague ideas into validated designs through disciplined, incremental reasoning and collaboration.

Review Score

64%

Validation Score

11/16

Implementation Score

77%

Activation Score

32%

SKILL.md

Review

Evals

Generated

14 days ago

Warnings & errors only

Criteria	Score
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')
metadata_version	'metadata' field is not a dictionary
license_field	'license' field is missing
body_examples	No examples detected (no code fences and no 'Example' wording)
body_steps	No step-by-step structure detected (no ordered list); consider adding a simple workflow

Overall Assessment

This is a well-structured process skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The step-by-step phases with hard gates and explicit validation checkpoints make it highly usable. Minor improvements could be made in conciseness by removing some redundant phrasing and in progressive disclosure by extracting templates or detailed formats into separate reference documents.

Suggestions

Condense the 'Operating Mode' section - the four 'No' statements could be a single line since they convey the same constraint
Consider extracting the Decision Log format and Documentation template into a separate TEMPLATES.md file to reduce the main skill length

Dimension	Score	Reasoning
Conciseness	2/3	The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'No creative implementation / No speculative features / No silent assumptions / No skipping ahead' could be condensed). The structure is clear but some sections repeat concepts Claude would understand implicitly.
Actionability	3/3	Provides highly concrete, step-by-step guidance with specific actions at each phase. Includes exact prompts to use ('Does this accurately reflect your intent?'), specific formats (5-7 bullets, 200-300 words), and clear checklists for exit criteria.
Workflow Clarity	3/3	Excellent multi-step workflow with numbered phases, explicit hard gates ('Understanding Lock'), mandatory validation checkpoints before proceeding, and clear exit criteria. The feedback loop of 'confirm or correct' before advancing is well-defined.
Progressive Disclosure	2/3	Content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, but it's a monolithic document that could benefit from splitting detailed sections (like the Decision Log format or Documentation templates) into separate reference files. The reference to 'multi-agent-brainstorming' skill at the end is appropriate.

Overall Assessment

This description suffers from vague, buzzword-heavy language ('disciplined, incremental reasoning and collaboration', 'validated designs') without explaining what the skill actually does. While it attempts to specify when to use it, the scope is so broad it would conflict with many other skills. The description reads more like marketing copy than actionable guidance for skill selection.

Suggestions

Replace abstract language with concrete actions (e.g., 'Creates technical design documents', 'Generates architecture diagrams', 'Writes feature specifications')
Narrow the scope to a specific domain rather than all 'creative or constructive work' - specify what type of designs or what output format
Add specific trigger terms users would naturally say, such as 'design doc', 'spec', 'RFC', 'technical proposal', or 'architecture review'

Dimension	Score	Reasoning
Specificity	1/3	The description uses vague, abstract language like 'creative or constructive work', 'vague ideas', and 'validated designs' without listing any concrete actions. No specific capabilities are mentioned.
Completeness	2/3	Has a 'when' clause ('Use this skill before any creative or constructive work...') but the 'what' is extremely vague - 'transforms vague ideas into validated designs through disciplined, incremental reasoning' doesn't explain concrete actions or outputs.
Trigger Term Quality	2/3	Contains some relevant keywords like 'features', 'components', 'architecture', 'behavior changes', and 'functionality' that users might mention, but these are broad and lack specific variations or natural phrasing users would actually say.
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	1/3	Extremely generic scope covering 'features, components, architecture, behavior changes, or functionality' would conflict with nearly any development-related skill. No clear niche or distinct triggers.

Repository: github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
Last updated: 14 days ago
Created: 14 days ago

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.