Name: citation-management
Rating: 40.8 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

Blog Docs Log in Get started

citation-management

Manage citations systematically throughout the research and writing process.

Quality

42%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/citation-management/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is citation-management in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Quality

Content

52%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 highly actionable and well-sequenced with validation checkpoints, but it is far too verbose for an overview: it repeats content across multiple sections and inlines material that should live in the (currently missing) bundle files. Progressive disclosure is undermined by the absence of the referenced files.

Suggestions

Collapse the "Tools and Scripts" and "Example Workflows" sections into the "Core Workflow" to remove repeated command listings; keep one canonical example per script.

Actually provide the referenced bundle files (references/*.md, scripts/*.py, assets/*) or remove the references; dangling references break navigation.

Move detailed API/operator reference tables (MeSH tags, Google Scholar operators, BibTeX field requirements) into the corresponding reference files and link to them from SKILL.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~1100-line body repeats the same script invocations across "Core Workflow", "Tools and Scripts", and four near-duplicate "Example Workflows" sections, with padded best-practice commentary Claude already knows; noticeably verbose.	2 / 5
Actionability	Most sections give concrete, executable bash commands with real flags and BibTeX examples (e.g. search_pubmed.py with MeSH terms, validate_citations.py --auto-fix); minor gaps keep it below fully copy-paste-ready 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-phase sequence with a validation phase (Phase 4) and feedback loop (validate -> auto-fix -> report -> review) is present; checkpoints are mostly explicit, with only minor validation gaps in batch/dedup steps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Although references are signaled with (see references/...), the referenced bundle files do not exist, and ~1100 lines of API-style material that belongs in separate files are inlined into SKILL.md, matching 'content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined.'	2 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

32%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 short and on-topic but too abstract: it states a domain with one generic verb and no concrete capabilities or explicit trigger conditions. It is distinct from sibling skills yet under-specified for discovery.

Suggestions

List concrete actions in the description, e.g. "Search Google Scholar and PubMed, convert DOIs/PMIDs/arXiv IDs to BibTeX, validate and clean citation files."

Add an explicit trigger clause: "Use when the user needs to build or clean a BibTeX bibliography, convert DOIs to citations, or validate references."

Include natural terms users actually say (BibTeX, .bib, references, bibliography) rather than only "citations".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the citation domain but only the abstract action "Manage citations systematically"; no concrete actions (search, extract, validate, format BibTeX) appear, matching the score-2 anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic.'	2 / 5
Completeness	There is a vague 'what' but no 'Use when...' trigger clause, so the 'when' is entirely missing; this sits between anchor 1 (both vague/missing) and anchor 3 (clear 'what'), leaning toward 2.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "Manage citations systematically throughout the research and writing process" are generic and omit the natural terms users would say (BibTeX, DOI, references, bibliography); only one or two generic keywords are present.	2 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Citation management is a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills; minor overlap risk with literature-review, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills.'	4 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Validation

75%

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 — 12 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (1114 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 77 missing	Warning

	Total	12 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/citation-management/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 2 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.