CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

notebooklm

Use this skill to query your Google NotebookLM notebooks directly from Claude Code for source-grounded, citation-backed answers from Gemini. Browser automation, library management, persistent auth. Drastically reduced hallucinations through document-only responses.

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

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 highly actionable with copy-paste commands and a clear sequenced workflow including a follow-up feedback loop, but it suffers from redundancy across sections and lacks validation checkpoints for destructive remove/cleanup operations. Progressive disclosure is decent with real reference files but could signal them inline rather than only at the end.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/confirmation checkpoint before destructive 'notebook_manager.py remove' and 'cleanup_manager.py --confirm' steps (e.g., list-then-confirm) to lift workflow clarity above 3.

Consolidate the repeated 'Always use run.py' warnings into one prominent section and remove the duplicated Script Reference commands that already appear in Core Workflow.

Link to the reference files inline at the relevant sections (e.g., 'see references/api_reference.md for all flags') instead of only listing them at the end.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient commands and workflow, but 'Always use run.py' is warned about in four separate sections and the Script Reference re-lists commands already shown in Core Workflow, so it could be tightened — not the lean 5, not severely padded enough for 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Commands throughout are fully executable and copy-paste ready with all flags — e.g. 'python scripts/run.py ask_question.py --question "…" --notebook-id ID' and 'notebook_manager.py add --url … --name … --description … --topics …' — covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Step 1–4 sequence and decision-flow diagram exist, and the follow-up mechanism is an explicit feedback loop, but destructive operations ('notebook_manager.py remove', 'cleanup_manager.py') lack validation checkpoints, which caps workflow clarity at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References to api_reference.md, troubleshooting.md, and usage_patterns.md are real one-level-deep files listed under Resources, but they are only signaled at the end rather than inline at point of use, and the inlined Script Reference overlaps content that belongs in api_reference.md — good but not the clean 5.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

62%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 clearly conveys what the skill does and stakes out a distinct NotebookLM/Gemini niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when…' trigger clause and natural user phrasings, capping completeness and trigger-term quality. Specificity of capabilities is solid with several concrete actions named.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when the user mentions NotebookLM, shares a NotebookLM URL, or asks to query their notebooks/docs' clause to lift completeness above 3.

Include natural user phrasings such as 'ask my NotebookLM' or 'check my docs' alongside the brand term to improve trigger-term coverage.

Replace the generic 'Browser automation, library management, persistent auth' with one or two more concrete capability verbs to push specificity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (NotebookLM, Gemini) and lists several concrete actions — 'query your Google NotebookLM notebooks', 'Browser automation, library management, persistent auth' — with only minor gaps in coverage, fitting the 'several specific actions' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('query…for source-grounded, citation-backed answers from Gemini'), but there is no explicit 'Use when…' trigger clause, so per the judging guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The brand keyword 'NotebookLM notebooks' and 'Gemini' are relevant and specific, but natural user phrases like 'ask my NotebookLM' or 'check my docs' and synonyms are absent, leaving common variations missing per the anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Google NotebookLM notebooks…answers from Gemini' identifies a clear, narrowly-scoped product niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

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
PleasePrompto/notebooklm-skill
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.