CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

aris-research-review

Get a deep critical review of research from GPT via Codex MCP. Use when user says "review my research", "help me review", "get external review", or wants critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results.

61

Quality

73%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/aris-research-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is research-review in wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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, actionable workflow skill with a clear multi-round sequence and concrete prompts. Main weaknesses are redundancy between Key Rules/Prompt Templates and the workflow, and absence of error-recovery guidance for the external MCP calls.

Suggestions

Collapse 'Key Rules' into the workflow steps or remove items already stated inline (xhigh config, comprehensive context) to reduce redundancy.

Add a brief error-recovery note for MCP failures (e.g., retry on tool error, fall back to a direct prompt if threadId is lost) to strengthen the workflow's validation checkpoint.

Move the 'Prompt Templates' bank into a references file and link to it, slimming the main body while preserving the templates.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and assumes Claude's competence, but the 'Key Rules' section reiterates the workflow (xhigh config, send comprehensive context) and 'Prompt Templates' partly duplicates the Step 2 prompt and Step 3 follow-ups, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable elements — the `claude mcp add` command, the MCP call config block, and copy-paste prompt templates — with only minor gaps from placeholder brackets like '[Full research context + specific questions]'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence (Gather → Initial review → Iterative dialogue → Convergence → Document) with an explicit convergence checkpoint, but it lacks error-recovery guidance for failed MCP calls or off-track reviewer responses.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly labeled sections and self-contained with no external references needed; minor gap is that the prompt-template bank (~15 lines) could optionally live in a separate reference file, keeping it just below the top anchor.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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 both capability and explicit trigger conditions with natural phrasing. Its only weaknesses are a single-action specificity profile and one slightly generic trigger phrase.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 more concrete actions to broaden specificity (e.g., 'identifies logical gaps, designs minimal experiments, drafts mock NeurIPS/ICML reviews').

Soften the generic trigger 'help me review' or qualify it (e.g., 'help me review my research') to reduce overlap with code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and mechanism ('Get a deep critical review of research from GPT via Codex MCP') but describes essentially one action rather than a list of several specific concrete actions, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Get a deep critical review of research from GPT via Codex MCP') and when ('Use when user says...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ('review my research', 'help me review', 'get external review', 'critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results') with good synonym coverage, though a few natural variations like 'critique my paper' are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The external-LLM research-review niche is distinct with specific triggers, but the generic phrase 'help me review' creates minor overlap risk with code-review or general review skills.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

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.