CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

deep-research

Deep research on any topic using parallel sub-agents and built-in tools only (WebSearch/WebFetch + free APIs, no keys). Use when the user asks for a thorough multi-source investigation with a cited report — "深度调研X"、"deep research"、"帮我全面研究一下"、"多方求证"、"写一份调研报告". NOT for simple lookups (single WebSearch suffices) and NOT for academic literature surveys (use auto-research skill instead).

74

Quality

92%

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

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.

A tight, highly actionable orchestration skill with an exemplary phased workflow and feedback loops. Its single material defect is that all three referenced detail files are missing from the bundle (and use the nonstandard `reference/` directory name), which both breaks progressive disclosure and leaves the sub-agent prompt template unavailable.

Suggestions

Ship the three referenced files (subagent-prompt.md, sources.md, report.md) in the bundle, and align the directory name with the standard `references/` convention so the markdown links resolve.

Alternatively, inline a minimal version of the sub-agent prompt template in the body, since Phase 3 depends on reproducing it verbatim and nothing in the bundle currently supplies it.

Add a one-line example of the expected findings-file format (claim / quote / URL / date / confidence) so sub-agents produce structurally consistent evidence even without the external template.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout — "Research is parallel; writing is single-point", "These are hard budgets", "raw page content must never enter your context" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance dominates: "Run `date +%Y-%m-%d` via Bash", the exact workspace tree, the depth-mode budget table, and citation rules ([n], [single source], [speculative]). Falls short of 5 because the linchpin sub-agent prompt is deferred to "the locked template in reference/subagent-prompt.md — reproduce it verbatim", and that file is not present in the bundle, leaving a gap in what can actually be executed.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: Phase 4 gap-check against brief.md with delta-query follow-up rounds, "If a sub-agent fails or returns thin results, note it and move on", a deep-mode critique pass, and a resume protocol. This matches the 5 anchor's feedback loops and error-recovery loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep and clearly signaled ([reference/subagent-prompt.md], [reference/sources.md], [reference/report.md]), and the inline content is appropriately overview-level. However, none of the three referenced files exist in the bundle (no references/ directory at all), so navigation to the detail content breaks; this falls between the well-structured-but-gapped 3 anchor and the broken-reference case, settling at 3.

3 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An excellent description: concrete capability statement, bilingual natural trigger phrases, explicit use-when guidance, and sharp exclusions that delineate it from sibling skills. All four rubric dimensions sit comfortably at the top anchor.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Deep research on any topic using parallel sub-agents and built-in tools only (WebSearch/WebFetch + free APIs, no keys)" names multiple concrete mechanisms — sub-agent orchestration, specific tools with a no-key constraint, and a cited report deliverable — with comprehensive coverage. It exceeds the 4 anchor because nothing material is left out: tools, process, output, and exclusions are all explicit.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both "what" (parallel sub-agent research with cited report) and "when" ("Use when the user asks for a thorough multi-source investigation with a cited report"), with concrete trigger phrases and NOT-for exclusions. Clearly matches the 5 anchor, not 4, because the when-clause is fully explicit.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrasings in both languages — "深度调研X", "deep research", "帮我全面研究一下", "多方求证", "写一份调研报告" — covering synonyms and real utterances a user would say. Comprehensive natural-term coverage matches the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"NOT for simple lookups (single WebSearch suffices) and NOT for academic literature surveys (use auto-research skill instead)" draws sharp boundaries against adjacent skills, leaving minimal conflict risk. Fits the 5 anchor's clear niche with distinct triggers.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-Code
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.