CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

paper-preference-planner

Extract paper-writing preferences from a user request before research and drafting, choosing direct generation defaults when the request does not require a preference interview.

57

Quality

66%

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 ./src/opensquilla/skills/bundled/paper-preference-planner/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

80%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 content is a tight, well-structured instruction skill with a concrete output contract and clear decision logic; its main gap is the lack of a worked example and an explicit self-validation step before emitting the brief.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example showing a user request mapped to the full PAPER_PREFERENCES output for both DIRECT and PREFERENCE_DRIVEN modes.

Include an explicit validation checkpoint (e.g., 're-check that no preference conflicts with the user request and that all defaulted fields are recorded under DEFAULTS_USED before emitting').

Collapse the small overlap between 'Decision modes' and 'Hard rules' so each directive appears once, trimming a few tokens.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the only minor over-explanation is restating each rule in both 'Decision modes' and 'Hard rules' sections, keeping it just below the 'Lean and efficient' anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives a fully concrete, copy-paste-ready output contract with exact field names and enum values, which is highly executable; the only minor gap is the absence of a worked input->output example, leaving it just short of fully covering common cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear single-purpose flow is sequenced (inputs -> decision modes -> output contract -> hard rules) with explicit handling for the discuss-first case, but there is no explicit validate-then-fix checkpoint on the produced brief, so it sits just below the explicit-validation anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

This is a short single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no external references needed; it is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, qualifying for the simple-skill exception where progressive disclosure scores 5 with just well-organized sections.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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, single-purpose action with a reasonable niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and only lightly covers natural user phrasings, capping completeness and trigger quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user asks to write, draft, or research a paper and you need to settle scope and style first').

Broaden trigger terms with everyday phrasings users actually say, such as 'write a paper', 'draft my paper', 'research paper', and 'paper requirements'.

List one or two more concrete actions (e.g., 'chooses citation style, audience, and depth') to lift specificity above a single action.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names one concrete action ('Extract paper-writing preferences') and the pre-drafting context, but does not enumerate multiple concrete actions, matching the anchor for 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (extract preferences before research/drafting) but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied via mode-switching language, so per the rubric completeness caps at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms ('paper-writing preferences', 'research and drafting') appear, but it omits natural user phrasings like 'write a paper' or 'draft my paper', fitting the anchor for 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The paper-preference-planning niche is mostly distinct from generic writing skills with only minor overlap risk against general drafting skills, fitting the 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor; it is not quite a fully self-contained niche with no conflict.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
TokenRhythm/opensquilla
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.