agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Insight assess

Skill allemaar/open-skills/skills/insight-assess

Structured decision evaluation — pros/cons, impact assessment, quality analysis, recommendation. Trigger when the user runs /assess or asks for evaluation, comparison, or impact analysis of an approach, decision, option, or implementation. Use insight-explore for divergent option generation, insight-critique for focused output review, and insight-adversarial for multi-POV stress testing.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add allemaar/open-skills --skill insight-assess

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 13 stars13 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, 912 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

/assess

Structured evaluation of an approach, decision, or implementation — assess viability across multiple dimensions and deliver a clear recommendation.

Structured execution spec: protocol.yon. Read it for the canonical rules and step sequence; this file is explanation. The two must stay in sync — if you edit one, update the other and refresh the @STAMP date.

Decision Support Protocol — convergent evaluation. /insight-explore generates alternatives (divergent). /insight-assess evaluates them (convergent). /insight-critique reviews outputs (reactive). Three complementary tools.

Phase 1 — Frame the Decision

Identify what is being assessed: a specific approach, a decision between options, an implementation pattern, or an architectural direction.

Load relevant context — files, docs, KIs, skills. Define what we are optimizing for and the constraints.

Gate: cannot assess without a clear subject. If the decision cannot be framed, ask for clarification before proceeding.

Phase 2 — Dimensional Analysis

Evaluate across all relevant dimensions. Skip dimensions that don't apply.

Pros & cons — concrete advantages and disadvantages. Cite actual code, dependencies, or patterns. No vague generalizations. If comparing multiple options, do side-by-side.

Quality assessment — score STRONG / ADEQUATE / WEAK with justification on:

  • Performance — bundle size, runtime overhead, N+1 queries, render cycles
  • Code quality — DRY violations, coupling, testability, readability
  • Developer experience — API ergonomics, debugging ease, onboarding friction
  • Maintainability — upgrade path, community support, lock-in risk

Impact assessment — map and classify overall impact LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH:

  • Blast radius — packages/apps/files
  • Migration effort — if replacing something
  • Breaking changes — if any
  • Learning curve — for the team
  • Future flexibility — does this open or close doors?

Phase 3 — Alignment Check

  • Does this align with repo coding standards?
  • Does it follow existing patterns, or introduce a new one?
  • If new, is it justified?
  • Check relevant skills and KIs for prior art.

Phase 4 — Recommendation

Structure:

  • VERDICT — one of: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAVEATS / RECONSIDER / REJECT
  • RATIONALE — 1–2 sentences
  • CONDITIONS — if PROCEED WITH CAVEATS: what must be addressed
  • ALTERNATIVES — if RECONSIDER / REJECT: what to do instead

Gate: assessment is incomplete without a recommendation delivered to the user.

Rules

  • MUST be concrete and specific when listing pros/cons — cite actual code, libraries, or patterns.
  • MUST check performance, DX, and maintainability — not just correctness.
  • MUST use consistent dimensions across all options when comparing.
  • MUST NOT make changes, write code, or execute — evaluation only.
  • MUST NOT hedge without a clear verdict — always commit to a recommendation.
  • SHOULD note caveats or conditions even if minor when recommending PROCEED.
  • SHOULD suggest concrete alternatives when recommending RECONSIDER.

Next Steps

  • /plan-create — if verdict is PROCEED
  • /insight-explore — if more options are needed before deciding
  • /insight-critique — if a deeper review of specific output is needed

Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output contract (human-output/SKILL.md).

Next skills. On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (next-skills/SKILL.md): surface the next-skills recommendations from front-matter for the caller to pick. Offer only — never auto-invoke.

Self-improvement. On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (self-improve/SKILL.md): if this run surfaced a concrete, blocking-or-recurring weakness in this skill, propose a specific fix for the handler to approve. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.

What ships with it: 1 file

6.1 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most review quality skills give in 912 tokens

Counted across 1,048 of the 1,783 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Ask questions one at a timein 81 of 1048, across 64 files
  • Provide a recommended answer for each questionin 73 of 1048, across 50 files
  • Explore the codebase instead of asking answerable questionsin 66 of 1048, across 42 files
  • Resolve dependencies between decisions one-by-onein 42 of 1048, across 17 files
  • Interview the user relentlessly about the planin 38 of 1048, across 13 files
  • Order findings by severityin 31 of 1048
  • Resolve each branch of the decision treein 27 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Run a grilling sessionin 26 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Update CONTEXT.md immediately when a term is resolvedin 26 of 1048, across 11 files
  • Propose precise canonical terms for vague languagein 25 of 1048, across 7 files
  • Create documentation files lazilyin 24 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Assign severity to every findingin 24 of 1048

Said here and by no other author read

  • identify the specific subject under assessment
  • ask for clarification if the decision cannot be framed
  • evaluate concrete pros and cons citing actual code
  • score quality dimensions with justification
  • map and classify overall impact level
  • check alignment with existing coding standards and patterns

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,736. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.