CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-add-fields

Add field definitions to existing research outline.

49

Quality

53%

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 ./skills/research-en/research-add-fields/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill body is concise and well-structured but weak on actionability, giving abstract directions rather than executable commands or examples, and lacks a validation checkpoint for the in-place YAML modification.

Suggestions

Add concrete executable guidance: a Glob pattern for locating fields.yaml, a YAML snippet showing the expected append format, and a concrete save step.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint after appending (e.g., re-read fields.yaml and confirm it parses / new fields are present) before declaring completion.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no concept padding, each step a single purposeful line, every token earning its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Steps are abstract directives ('Find fields.yaml', 'Append confirmed fields') with no executable commands, code, or YAML examples to follow.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence with user confirmation exists, but the in-place file modification has no validation checkpoint that the resulting fields.yaml is well-formed, capping this at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A short, single-purpose skill with well-organized sections and no need for external bundle files; the simple-skill carve-out lets this score 3.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 single capability but lacks any 'when to use' trigger guidance, which limits completeness and trigger term quality. It is clear and conflict-resistant but not maximally specific.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers (e.g., 'Use when the user wants to extend an existing research outline with new fields').

List a couple more concrete actions (e.g., 'discover, confirm, and append field definitions') to raise specificity from one action to multiple.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a clear domain ('existing research outline') and one concrete action ('Add field definitions'), but only a single action rather than the multiple specific actions needed for a 3.

2 / 3

Completeness

It states what the skill does but never says when Claude should use it; the missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2 per the rubric.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms like 'field definitions' and 'research outline' appear, but there are no natural user phrasings or common variations and no trigger guidance.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is fairly specific and unlikely to broadly conflict, but the narrow trigger surface could overlap with other research-organization skills.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
Weizhena/Deep-Research-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.