Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →This skill should be used as the entry gate for build/create/implement requests. Triggers on "build X", "create Y", "implement Z", "add feature", "try both approaches", "not sure which approach". Offers brainstorm-together or omakase (chef's choice parallel exploration) options. Detects indecision during brainstorming to offer parallel exploration.
.claude/skills/aiskillstore-omakase-off/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 181% | 0% |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -20% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -32% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -32% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -9% | 0% |
Chef's choice exploration - when you're not sure WHAT to build, explore different approaches in parallel.
Part of Test Kitchen Development:
omakase-off - Chef's choice exploration (different approaches/plans)cookoff - Same recipe, multiple cooks compete (same plan, multiple implementations)Core principle: Let indecision emerge naturally during brainstorming, then implement multiple approaches in parallel to let real code + tests determine the best solution.
When: "I want to build...", "Create a...", "Implement...", "Add a feature..."
Present:
Before we brainstorm the details, would you like to:
1. Brainstorm together - We'll explore requirements and design step by step
2. Omakase (chef's choice) - I'll generate 3-5 best approaches, implement them
in parallel, and let tests pick the winnerDetection signals:
When detected:
You seem flexible on the approach. Would you like to:
1. I'll pick what seems best and continue brainstorming
2. Explore multiple approaches in parallel (omakase-off)| Phase | Description | |-------|-------------| | 0. Entry | Present brainstorm vs omakase choice | | 1. Brainstorm | Passive slot detection during design | | 1.5. Decision | If slots detected, offer parallel exploration | | 2. Plan | Generate implementation plan per variant | | 3. Implement | Dispatch ALL agents in SINGLE message | | 4. Evaluate | Scenario tests → fresh-eyes → judge survivors | | 5. Complete | Finish winner, cleanup losers |
See references/detailed-workflow.md for full phase details.
docs/plans/<feature>/
design.md # Shared context from brainstorming
omakase/
variant-<slug>/
plan.md # Implementation plan for this variant
result.md # Final report
.worktrees/
variant-<slug>/ # Omakase variant worktree| Type | Examples | Worth exploring? | |------|----------|------------------| | Architectural | Storage engine, framework, auth method | Yes | | Trivial | File location, naming, config format | No |
Only architectural decisions become slots for parallel exploration.
Max 5-6 implementations. Don't do full combinatorial explosion:
| Dependency | Usage | |------------|-------| | brainstorming | Modified flow with passive slot detection | | writing-plans | Generate implementation plan per variant | | git-worktrees | Create isolated worktree per variant | | parallel-agents | Dispatch all variant subagents in parallel | | scenario-testing | Run same scenarios against all variants | | fresh-eyes | Quality review on survivors → input for judge | | finish-branch | Handle winner (merge/PR), cleanup losers |
User: "I need to build a CLI todo app."
Claude: [Triggers omakase-off]
Before we dive in, how would you like to approach this?
1. Brainstorm together
2. Omakase (chef's choice)
User: "1"
Claude: [Brainstorming proceeds, detects indecision on storage]
You seem flexible on storage (JSON vs SQLite). Would you like to:
1. Explore in parallel - I'll implement both variants
2. Best guess - I'll pick JSON (simpler)
User: "1"
[Creates plans for variant-json, variant-sqlite]
[Dispatches parallel agents in SINGLE message]
[Runs scenario tests on both]
[Fresh-eyes review on survivors]
[Presents comparison, user picks winner]
[Cleans up loser, finishes winner branch]| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-09 | fail→pass | 4,624 | 5,589 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 724 | 2,036 | +181% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 12,334 | 2,633 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,822 | 1,461 | -20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 13,831 | 2,372 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,170 | 1,471 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 14,575 | 3,046 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,269 | 1,543 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 14,005 | 3,686 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,137 | 1,658 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 15,478 | 6,397 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,523 | 2,284 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 15,201 | 6,371 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,209 | 2,048 | -7% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 7,782 | 2,403 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,106 | 1,494 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 12,312 | 5,201 | -58% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,977 | 1,992 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 16,066 | 8,035 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,275 | 2,364 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 7,833 | 3,129 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,180 | 1,524 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 14,519 | 2,486 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,207 | 1,493 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 12,475 | 2,239 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,846 | 1,461 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 6,539 | 3,772 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 978 | 1,649 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 17,016 | 12,491 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,511 | 2,058 | -18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 11,362 | 2,500 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,708 | 1,504 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 7,003 | 1,392 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 965 | 1,294 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 12,766 | 5,622 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,913 | 1,927 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 11,785 | 3,968 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,746 | 1,759 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 20,829 | 13,395 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,566 | 3,461 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 7,661 | 3,849 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,348 | 1,735 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 8,197 | 4,393 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,471 | 1,890 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +55 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.