scientific-brainstorming

Creative research ideation and exploration. Use for open-ended brainstorming sessions, exploring interdisciplinary connections, challenging assumptions, or identifying research gaps. Best for early-stage research planning when you do not have specific observations yet. For formulating testable hypotheses from data use hypothesis-generation.

Quality

79%

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 ./backend/cli/skills/research/scientific-brainstorming/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%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.

The body is a well-organized conversational skill with a clear five-phase workflow, ready-to-use example prompts, and good progressive disclosure via a single real reference file. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in the Core Principles and technique-description sections, which explain concepts Claude largely already knows.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Core Principles' section to only non-obvious guidance, since traits like 'Conversational and Collaborative' and 'Intellectually Curious' largely restate behaviors Claude already applies.

Condense the Phase 2 technique descriptions that restate well-known brainstorming methods (Assumption Reversal, Scale Shifting, Constraint Removal) and point to references/brainstorming_methods.md for fuller treatment instead.

Tighten generic technique prompts like 'Draw parallels from other scientific fields' into more specific, actionable phrasing to lift actionability toward the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with concrete example questions and prompts, but the 'Core Principles' section restates fairly obvious behaviors and several brainstorming techniques (e.g. assumption reversal, scale shifting) describe concepts Claude already knows, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, ready-to-use example questions and prompts across phases and adaptive situations, with only minor gaps where some techniques are described abstractly ('Draw parallels from other scientific fields') rather than as specific actions.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced five-phase workflow with explicit phase transitions and conditional adaptive branches ('When the Scientist Is Stuck', 'When Ideas Are Too Safe'), but it lacks the checklists/explicit validation checkpoints of the top anchor — though those are not required for a non-destructive conversational skill.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear overview structure with a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/brainstorming_methods.md, which exists) that is mentioned inline and detailed in a dedicated Resources section, with bulk methodology material appropriately split out.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 is strong: it states a clear purpose, provides explicit 'Use for' trigger guidance with concrete scenarios, and carves out a distinct niche with explicit boundary handling against hypothesis-generation. The only weakness is that its listed actions are somewhat conceptual rather than sharply operational.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several specific actions ('exploring interdisciplinary connections, challenging assumptions, or identifying research gaps', 'open-ended brainstorming sessions', 'early-stage research planning'), but they are gerund/conceptual phrases rather than the crisp operational verb-object actions seen in the top anchor, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers both: the 'what' ('Creative research ideation and exploration') and an explicit 'Use for...' when-clause with concrete trigger scenarios, mirroring the top anchor's structure.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say ('brainstorming sessions', 'research gaps', 'interdisciplinary connections', 'research planning'), but a few common synonyms (e.g. 'research ideas', 'ideation') are only weakly present and no extension-style triggers apply.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche (scientific/research ideation) with distinct triggers and an explicit boundary statement ('For formulating testable hypotheses from data use hypothesis-generation') that minimizes conflict with adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: synthetic-sciences/openscience
Path: backend/cli/skills/research/scientific-brainstorming/SKILL.md
Commit: 1d182e9

Reviewed: 7 hours 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.