obsidian-literature-workflow

Use this skill for project-scoped literature review built on Sources/Papers, with synthesis landing in Knowledge, writing handoff in Writing, and the default literature canvas under Maps/literature.canvas.

Quality

76%

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 ./skills/obsidian-literature-workflow/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

82%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 tight, well-structured overview with concrete path conventions and an explicit evidence gate, supported by real reference files; the main gaps are deferred executable commands and two unlisted references.

Suggestions

Surface the build script invocation (e.g. the build_literature_canvas.py command from CANVAS-WORKFLOW.md) inline so the body is directly executable.

Link the 'Read next' entries as markdown links and add CANVAS-WORKFLOW.md / GRAPH-WORKFLOW.md so all bundle files are discoverable.

Inline a short validate-fix-retry loop around the evidence gate to make the workflow's recovery path explicit.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~40-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every rule earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete file paths and explicit required fields (Evidence Record ID, source type, claim strength, allowed/forbidden wording) give specific guidance, but the actual executable build commands live in reference files rather than the body.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear Sources->Knowledge->Writing->canvas sequence with an explicit evidence-gate checkpoint ('only after promoted claims pass the evidence gate'), though the validate-fix-retry recovery loop is delegated to references rather than inlined.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A clear 'Read next' section signals one-level-deep references that all resolve to real files, but two reference files (CANVAS-WORKFLOW.md, GRAPH-WORKFLOW.md) are unlisted and references use backtick paths rather than clickable links.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

71%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 clearly conveys a niche literature-review workflow with explicit trigger phrasing and concrete surfaces, but trigger-term vocabulary is somewhat jargon-heavy and lacks natural synonyms.

Suggestions

Add natural user-facing synonyms to the trigger clause, e.g. 'paper notes', 'research notes', 'related work', or 'literature matrix'.

Name 1-2 concrete actions (e.g. 'extract claims', 'build a claim map') alongside the surface locations to raise specificity.

Tighten the 'when' guidance with a more specific trigger, such as 'Use when the user asks to review papers for a project or build a literature synthesis.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the literature-review domain plus several concrete destinations (synthesis in Knowledge, writing handoff in Writing, canvas in Maps), but stages are workflow placements rather than fully concrete actions, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (literature review across Sources->Knowledge->Writing->canvas) and 'when' ('Use this skill for project-scoped literature review') are present, though the trigger could be more specific.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'literature review' and 'Use this skill for' are natural terms, but the rest leans on internal folder jargon (Sources/Papers, Knowledge, Maps/literature.canvas) and omits common synonyms like 'paper notes' or 'related work'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear Obsidian literature-workflow niche with distinct folder-based triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Path: skills/obsidian-literature-workflow/SKILL.md
Commit: 6ed46da

Reviewed: 8 days 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.