CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

paper-spine

Write, rewrite, or build a paper or report (journal, conference, report, review, competition) end to end, then output LaTeX/PDF/Word. Contribution-first, reviewer-aware.

64

Quality

77%

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 ./dist/hermes/skills/academic-writing/paper-spine/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is paper-spine in WUBING2023/PaperSpine

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%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 SKILL.md body is a highly actionable, well-sequenced orchestrator with strong validation gates and clean one-level-deep references to verified playbooks. Its main weakness is conciseness: command blocks and rules are restated across stages, adding tokens without new information.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is operationally dense (routing tables, gate commands, hard rules) but repeats material: the pandoc + word_guard zh command block recurs in Stages 8, 10, and 12, and the Chinese completion rule is restated twice; this puts it at 'mostly efficient with some unnecessary content' rather than the lean 4 anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste executable throughout: exact commands like "python scripts/progress_check.py paper_rewriting_output --gate intake", full pandoc invocation with bibliography flags, and specific output file names cover the common cases; not 4 because gaps are negligible.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 12-stage sequence is explicitly numbered with a per-stage gate, a resume-first rule, an anti-skip rule, a loop rule, and a final hard gate with feedback loops ("If FAILED: return to intake"), giving clear validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops for the destructive/batch audit operations.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The orchestrator is an overview that routes to one-level-deep references via two explicit tables (trigger→references/*.md, stage→references/*.md); all referenced playbooks (resume.md, audit.md, latex.md, contribution.md, etc.) were verified to exist, and detailed per-stage content is correctly offloaded rather than inlined.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 is specific and well-targeted to academic writing with strong venue/format keywords, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause within the description itself, which caps completeness at 3. Adding a one-sentence trigger clause would lift the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause to the description, e.g. 'Use when writing, rewriting, or building a journal, conference, review, competition, or report manuscript, or when producing LaTeX/PDF/Word output with citations.'

Add natural synonyms users say ('manuscript', '.tex', '.docx', 'cover letter', 'reviewer response') to broaden trigger coverage.

Mention key deliverables (highlights, cover letter, reviewer response letter) in the description so the 'what' matches the triggers list.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes "Write, rewrite, or build a paper or report (journal, conference, report, review, competition) end to end, then output LaTeX/PDF/Word" name the domain plus several concrete actions (write, rewrite, build, multi-format output); it does not reach 5 because deliverables named in the triggers (highlights, cover letter, reviewer response) are absent from the description itself.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clearly stated (write/rewrite/build a paper, output LaTeX/PDF/Word), but the description itself contains no "Use when..." trigger clause; per the rubric a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3 even though trigger guidance exists in a separate frontmatter field.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural keywords "paper", "report", "journal", "conference", "review", "competition", "LaTeX/PDF/Word" give good coverage with venue synonyms; it stops short of 5 because common user phrasings like "manuscript" and file extensions such as ".tex"/".docx" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is sharp ("Contribution-first, reviewer-aware" plus five venue types and LaTeX/PDF/Word output), making false-trigger risk against other skills minimal; it is not 4 because the scope is unambiguously academic manuscript production.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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
WUBING2023/PaperSpine
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.