CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

academic-researcher

Academic research assistant for literature reviews, paper analysis, and scholarly writing. Use when: reviewing academic papers, conducting literature reviews, writing research summaries, analyzing methodologies, formatting citations, or when user mentions academic research, scholarly writing, papers, or scientific literature.

74

Quality

91%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

A well-structured, highly actionable academic-research skill with concrete citation templates, analysis frameworks, and output formats. Its main weakness is mild verbosity in the writing-standards section and the absence of bundle files that could offload the lengthy worked example and citation specs.

Suggestions

Trim the 'Academic Writing Standards' section to remove guidance Claude already knows (e.g., 'Use precise, formal language', 'Clear topic sentences'); keep only discipline-specific or non-obvious points.

Move the full spaced-repetition worked example and the complete APA/MLA/Chicago citation specifications into separate reference files (e.g., references/citation-formats.md, references/example-summary.md) referenced one level deep from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint to the paper-analysis and literature-review workflows (e.g., 'Confirm every claim is tied to a cited source before finalizing') to strengthen workflow clarity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with genuinely useful templates (citation formats, frameworks), but the 'Academic Writing Standards' section restates knowledge Claude already has ('Use precise, formal language', 'Clear topic sentences') and could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready structural templates — exact APA/MLA/Chicago citation formats, a 5-section paper analysis framework, literature review structure, and output format — all directly executable guidance for an instruction-only skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes (paper analysis sections, literature review structure) are clearly sequenced; minor gap is the absence of explicit verification checkpoints, though this is non-destructive/non-batch work so the feedback-loop cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Single-file skill with no bundle files present; content is well-organized under clear section headers. The full worked example and complete citation specifications could arguably be split into reference files, but the in-file structure is solid and navigable.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 is exemplary: third-person voice, concrete actions, explicit 'Use when' triggers with synonyms, and a clearly distinct academic niche. It satisfies both the 'what' and 'when' requirements with no over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'literature reviews, paper analysis, and scholarly writing' plus 'reviewing academic papers, conducting literature reviews, writing research summaries, analyzing methodologies, formatting citations' — providing comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Academic research assistant for literature reviews, paper analysis, and scholarly writing') and 'when' ('Use when: reviewing academic papers...'), with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing terms with synonyms are present — 'academic research, scholarly writing, papers, or scientific literature' — covering the common phrasings a user would actually say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear academic-research niche with distinct triggers (academic research, scholarly writing, scientific literature), giving it minimal overlap risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

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
OpenLAIR/dr-claw
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.