obsidian-source-ingestion

Use this skill to ingest external materials into the current project-scoped Obsidian KB as source notes under Sources/Papers, Sources/Web, Sources/Docs, Sources/Data, Sources/Interviews, or Sources/Notes.

Quality

61%

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-source-ingestion/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

68%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.

A disciplined, token-efficient overview that correctly pushes per-type detail into real one-level-deep reference files. Its weaknesses are the absence of an ordered ingestion workflow with any validation checkpoint, and actionability gaps where key terms ('important', 'canonical') and the routing decision are left implicit.

Suggestions

Add an ordered workflow (e.g., 1. route the material via `references/SOURCE-TYPES.md`, 2. create the note per the matching type reference, 3. update `_system/registry.md`, 4. update `02-Index.md` if important, 5. append to today's `Daily/`) so the rules read as a sequence rather than unordered constraints.

Add a validation checkpoint before creating a note: check `_system/registry.md` for an existing entry for the same source to prevent duplicate ingestion, and define what makes a source 'important' or 'canonical'.

Annotate each 'Read next' entry with its trigger (e.g., 'Papers: see `references/PAPER-SOURCE-NOTES.md`; datasets: see `references/DATA-SOURCE-NOTES.md`') so the reader can navigate directly to the relevant guide.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~30-line body contains no concept explanations or padding; every line is a concrete rule or a reference pointer, fully assuming Claude's competence.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete rules exist (update `_system/registry.md`, append to `Daily/`, don't create top-level `Papers/`) but key execution details are missing from the body: no source-note structure example, no routing rule, and 'important sources'/'canonical' are undefined.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Core rules enumerate the required actions but as unordered constraints rather than a sequenced workflow, and validation checkpoints (e.g., checking the registry for an existing entry before creating a duplicate source note) are absent.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A lean overview with one-level-deep references that all exist and are appropriately split by source type; the flat 'Read next' list lacks per-reference guidance on which file to use for which material, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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.

A specific, third-person description with a clear niche and concrete destination paths, but it lacks any 'Use when' trigger guidance and omits natural synonyms users would say when asking for this skill. Adding an explicit trigger clause with common phrasings would lift completeness and trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., 'Use when the user wants to add, save, import, or capture an external paper, web page, document, dataset, or interview into the project Obsidian KB as a source note.'

Include natural user synonyms ('add', 'save', 'import', 'clip', 'vault') alongside 'ingest' so trigger matching works for how users actually phrase the request.

Briefly enumerate the ingestion actions (route material to the right Sources/ folder, create a structured source note, update the registry and index) to make capability coverage comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (project-scoped Obsidian KB) and one concrete action (ingest external materials as source notes under six named paths), but does not comprehensively cover what ingestion involves. It clearly matches the 3 anchor ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions') and not 4, which requires several distinct specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear (ingest external materials as source notes into the project Obsidian KB under named paths), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not 4 because the 'when' is entirely unstated, not merely implicit.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain keywords are present ('ingest', 'source notes', 'Obsidian', 'Papers/Web/Docs/Data/Interviews') but common natural variations a user would actually say ('add', 'save', 'import', 'clip', 'vault') are missing. This matches the 3 anchor ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations') rather than 4's 'good keyword coverage'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'project-scoped Obsidian KB', 'source notes', and the `Sources/` hierarchy establish a clear niche with distinct triggers, but there is minor overlap risk with generic note-taking/capture skills. This matches the 4 anchor ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than 5, which expects explicit distinct trigger phrases.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar
Path: skills/obsidian-source-ingestion/SKILL.md
Commit: 9037873

Reviewed: 2 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.