paper-revision-author

Revise independently drafted paper sections into one coherent LaTeX body before the abstract is written.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./src/opensquilla/skills/bundled/paper-revision-author/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

87%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 exceptionally lean and actionable with a clear output contract and explicit hard rules, excelling on conciseness, actionability, and structure. Its only weakness is the absence of explicit validation/verification checkpoints for the batch revision, which caps workflow clarity at 3.

Suggestions

Add explicit verification checkpoints, e.g. 'After revision, confirm at least 20 distinct citation keys remain and the body compiles to 10+ pages.'

Include a brief validate-and-fix loop: 'If duplicate paragraphs or inconsistent terminology remain, re-revise the affected sections before returning.'

Optionally add a final self-check that no abstract, preamble, bibliography, Markdown, or code fences slipped into the output.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no concept-explanation padding (it never explains LaTeX, citation keys, or section structure) and every line earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance is given: an exact section-order LaTeX template, enumerated inputs, and specific hard rules (20+ citation keys, 10+ pages, no abstract/preamble/bibliography), so Claude knows exactly what to produce and avoid.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The output sequence and constraints are clear, but the batch-style revision (removing duplicates, enforcing cross-section rules) has no explicit validation or verification steps, which per the guidelines caps workflow clarity at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	At under 50 lines with no external references needed, the content is cleanly organized into Inputs, Output contract, and Hard rules, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a 5.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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 clearly states a concrete, narrow capability in third person but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and broader keyword coverage, capping the completeness and trigger dimensions at 3. It is specific and distinct but not maximally discoverable.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when merging independently drafted paper sections into a coherent LaTeX body before the abstract is written.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users say, such as 'manuscript', 'draft', or 'merge sections'.

Optionally enumerate 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g. deduplicate paragraphs, harmonize terminology) to lift specificity toward 4-5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (paper sections, LaTeX body) and one concrete action ('Revise ... into one coherent LaTeX body'), but does not enumerate the several distinct sub-actions, so it is not comprehensive enough for a 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but 'when' is only weakly implied by the sequencing phrase 'before the abstract is written' and there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain terms like 'paper sections' and 'LaTeX body' appear, but common synonyms a user might say (manuscript, draft, merge sections) are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The revision-stage, pre-abstract LaTeX-body niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general academic-writing skills; it is not a 5 because no explicit trigger phrase distinguishes it at invocation time.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: TokenRhythm/opensquilla
Path: src/opensquilla/skills/bundled/paper-revision-author/SKILL.md
Commit: 94ac35e

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.