CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sn-research-report

用于撰写或组织研究报告结构。按读者认知任务(全景/对比/调查/时序)和领域惯例(学术/医疗/法律/政策)选择报告模板。

57

Quality

65%

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/sn-research-report/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%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.

This is a well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill: it provides a clear selection decision tree, concrete section checklists per template, sub-type variations, and an enforced execution discipline, all largely token-efficient. It loses points only for moderate trigger coverage in the description and minor opportunities to externalize some detail.

Suggestions

Tighten the opening framing paragraph — the principle it states is already implied by the selection digraph, so it can be shortened or removed to lift conciseness toward 5.

Add one fully worked end-to-end example (e.g. a filled 对比矩阵 for a sample 技术选型) so the most common case is copy-paste ready, pushing actionability to 5.

Consider moving the four domain-specific templates (学术/医疗/法律/政策) into a referenced file (e.g. DOMAIN_TEMPLATES.md) surfaced from the main body, which would improve progressive_disclosure navigation while keeping SKILL.md a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and mostly lean — tables, a compact decision digraph, and terse rules — with only minor padded spots (e.g. the opening framing paragraph restating the principle already implied by the digraph); it generally assumes Claude's competence and avoids teaching basics.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives highly concrete, executable guidance: explicit section tables with 必须/可选 flags, a decision digraph, sub-type differences, and a format-by-information-type table with mandatory formats; the only gap is that templates are structural checklists rather than copy-paste artifacts, so a few common cases could be more directly exemplified.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The selection workflow is clearly sequenced (decision digraph → base structure → micro-format rules → execution discipline), and the 执行纪律 section functions as an explicit checklist of must-do and forbidden behaviors; validation checkpoints for batch/destructive operations are not strongly relevant here, but error-recovery feedback loops are not the point of a structuring skill, so this sits just below 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single self-contained SKILL.md with no references/scripts/assets bundle, and it is well-organized into clearly headed sections (four base structures, four domain templates, format rules, execution discipline); under the simple-skill guidance this is good structure with only minor organization gaps, so it scores 4 rather than 5 because some domain-template and micro-format material could arguably live in referenced files.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 conveys a clear, somewhat specific niche tied to research-report structure selection but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness, and its trigger-term coverage is moderate rather than comprehensive.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user needs to write or outline a research report, literature review, due-diligence memo, policy brief, or competitive analysis.'

Expand trigger terms with natural synonyms and concrete deliverable names users actually say (综述, 尽职调查, 竞品分析, 政策简报, 可行性研究) to improve trigger_term_quality.

Make the 'what' more action-oriented (e.g. 'Selects a report template and outputs the required section structure with formatting rules') rather than describing the selection logic abstractly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (writing/organizing research report structures) and several concrete axes of action (selecting templates by cognitive task and by domain convention), though it lists the framework categories rather than discrete executable actions, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

It clearly states 'what' the skill does (select/organize research report templates), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause telling Claude when to invoke it, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It references natural task phrases like 全景/对比/调查/时序 and domain terms like 学术/医疗/法律/政策, but it omits common synonyms a user would say (e.g. '研究报告', '综述', '尽调', '竞品分析') and lacks file extensions, leaving gaps in natural coverage.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a fairly distinct niche (research-report structuring guided by reader cognitive task + domain conventions) that is unlikely to collide with unrelated skills, with only minor overlap risk against generic writing/reporting skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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
OpenSenseNova/SenseNova-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.