CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

idea-evaluator

Evaluates a preliminary research idea against a five-dimension framework (Higher, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Broader) plus idea-lifecycle and student-capability matching, paradigm-shift probing, and a fatal-flaws audit. Returns a reviewer-style verdict; non-STEM ideas route to substitute frameworks. Use when the user has a draft research idea and asks whether it is worth pursuing, asks to 'evaluate this idea', 'score this idea', 'assess feasibility', 'novelty check', 'is this a good research direction', or before committing to a paper scope.

75

Quality

92%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is a well-engineered instruction skill: highly actionable, with a clearly sequenced 8-step workflow and strong validation checkpoints (early gate, short-circuit, integrity gate), and good progressive disclosure via real, clearly signaled reference files. The only weakness is conciseness — the Overview/When-to-use sections duplicate the frontmatter description and some explanatory prose could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Tighten conciseness by trimming overlap: the Overview and 'When to use this skill' sections restate the frontmatter description and triggers — collapse or cross-reference them to remove redundancy.

Condense the 'Scoring discipline' paragraph in Step 4; the attribution caveat and untested-mechanism rules can be shortened without losing the core 'start at 5 and justify movement' rule.

Consider moving the detailed integrity-gate bullet definitions into a short reference file, keeping only the enforceability-class definitions and the downgrade rule inline in SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and largely skill-specific, but it runs ~310 lines with real redundancy — the Overview and 'When to use this skill' sections repeat the frontmatter description and triggers, and the scoring-discipline prose could be tightened — fitting the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor rather than the lean 'every token earns its place' anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout: an explicit 8-step procedure, precise scoring rules ('start every dimension at 5 and justify movement', mechanism-based labels), a short-circuit rule, explicit verdict thresholds ('Strong Accept requires at least two dimensions at 8+'), and a complete fill-in output template with tables — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step process is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the fatal-flaws audit is an 'early gate', the short-circuit rule stops on CRITICAL flaws, and the integrity gate tags each check [inspection]/[attestation] with a 'downgrade the verdict on failure' feedback loop, matching the 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps' anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that points to well-signaled one-level-deep references (e.g. 'See: references/fatal-flaws.md', 'references/five-dimensions.md', 'references/lifecycle-capability-matching.md'), all of which exist as real files, with detail appropriately split out rather than inlined — matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 across all four dimensions: it lists concrete actions, includes natural quoted trigger phrases, answers both 'what' and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when' clause, and occupies a distinct niche. Voice is third person throughout, so no specificity penalty applies.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — 'evaluates a preliminary research idea against a five-dimension framework (Higher, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Broader)', 'idea-lifecycle and student-capability matching', 'paradigm-shift probing', 'fatal-flaws audit', 'Returns a reviewer-style verdict', 'non-STEM ideas route to substitute frameworks' — matching the anchor for listing several specific concrete actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (evaluates against the framework and returns one of three verdicts) and 'when' via a present 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, satisfying the highest completeness anchor rather than capping at 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes natural phrases a user would actually say — 'evaluate this idea', 'score this idea', 'assess feasibility', 'novelty check', 'is this a good research direction' plus 'whether it is worth pursuing' — giving good coverage of common variations, well above the 'some relevant keywords' anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (preliminary research-idea evaluation before paper scope) with distinct, domain-specific triggers; it would not naturally fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
HKUSTDial/Supervisor-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.