CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

literature-review

Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

60

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.claude/skills/literature-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

60%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 well-organized with strong actionability, a clear multi-phase workflow, and effective progressive disclosure to genuine bundle files. Its main weakness is conciseness: structural duplication, promotional padding, and a redundant summary add tokens without adding value.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicate '### Screening and Selection' section (the one whose bullets are copied from Search Strategy) and de-duplicate the 'Use multiple databases', 'Include preprint servers', and 'Document everything' bullets that appear under both Search Strategy and Screening.

Tighten the Visual Enhancement section: drop the promotional 'MANDATORY'/Nano Banana Pro framing and keep only the concrete generate_schematic.py command and the list of figure types.

Delete or sharply condense the Summary section, which restates eight points already covered in Best Practices and Pitfalls.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Noticeably verbose: the '### Screening and Selection' heading is duplicated (appearing twice) with three bullets copied verbatim from the Search Strategy section, the schematic block uses promotional padding ('Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate...'), and the final Summary recapitulates eight points already covered.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable commands (parallel-cli search, verify_citations.py, generate_pdf.py --check-deps, generate_schematic.py with args) plus install snippets and real referenced scripts, with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear seven-phase sequence is presented with validation present (Phase 6 citation verification and the 'Verify all citations' best practice), so the batch-operation cap does not apply; minor checkpoint and error-recovery detail is deferred to references.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to real bundle files (core_workflow.md, search_and_citation.md, example_workflow.md, citation_styles.md, database_strategies.md, review_template.md); structure is good though the inline best-practices/pitfalls lists make the overview somewhat long.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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 strong, well-structured description that clearly states capabilities and provides explicit use-when triggers with natural terminology. It is comprehensive on actions and triggers, with only minor gaps in action coverage and distinctiveness edge cases.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions (conduct systematic reviews across named databases, generate markdown/PDFs, verify citations in multiple citation styles), with minor gaps such as screening and synthesis not being mentioned.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (conduct reviews, create formatted documents/PDFs with verified citations) and 'when' ('This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage including 'systematic literature reviews', 'meta-analyses', 'research synthesis', and 'comprehensive literature searches'; a few common variations (e.g., scoping review, thesis) are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche of systematic literature reviews with citation verification; mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general academic-search skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
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.