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.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill brainstormingOverall
score
68%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
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 vague, buzzword-heavy language ('disciplined, incremental reasoning and collaboration', 'validated designs') without specifying concrete actions. While it attempts to define when to use the skill, the scope is so broad it would conflict with many other skills, and the actual capabilities remain unclear.
Suggestions
Replace abstract language with specific actions (e.g., 'Creates design documents, defines API contracts, produces architecture diagrams, writes technical specifications').
Narrow the scope to a distinct niche - instead of 'any creative or constructive work', specify the exact type of design work (e.g., 'system design', 'UI/UX design', 'API design').
Add concrete trigger terms users would naturally say, such as 'design doc', 'RFC', 'technical spec', 'architecture review', or specific file types/outputs.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | 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. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | 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. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 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. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Extremely generic scope covering 'features, components, architecture, behavior changes, or functionality' would conflict with virtually any development-related skill. No clear niche or distinct triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%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 excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The step-by-step phases with hard gates and explicit exit criteria make it highly usable. Minor improvements could be made in conciseness (reducing redundant emphasis) and progressive disclosure (extracting templates/checklists to separate files for complex projects).
Suggestions
Condense the 'Operating Mode' section - the four 'No' statements could be a single line or merged with Purpose
Consider extracting the NFR checklist and Decision Log template into separate reference files for reusability
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | 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 formatting with emoji headers and repeated emphasis on 'mandatory' adds some bulk without proportional value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides highly concrete, step-by-step guidance with specific deliverables (5-7 bullet summary, Decision Log format, exact questions to ask). The process is clearly defined with explicit gates and checkpoints that Claude can directly follow. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with numbered phases, explicit hard gates ('Understanding Lock'), clear exit criteria, and validation checkpoints after each section. The 'Do NOT proceed until explicit confirmation' pattern provides strong feedback loops. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but everything is in a single file. The reference to 'multi-agent-brainstorming' skill at the end is appropriate, but the skill could benefit from splitting detailed guidance (e.g., NFR checklist, Decision Log template) into separate reference files. | 2 / 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.
- 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.