CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

citation-management

Comprehensive citation management for academic research; use when you need to discover papers (Google Scholar/PubMed), extract/verify metadata (DOI/PMID/arXiv/URL), and produce validated, clean BibTeX for manuscripts.

72

Quality

89%

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

78%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 content is highly actionable with a complete executable workflow and excellent progressive disclosure to real reference files. The main weakness is conciseness: a stretch of generic templated boilerplate sections adds tokens without citation-specific value.

Suggestions

Condense or merge the generic boilerplate sections (Required Inputs, Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Input Validation, Quick Validation) into a single concise checklist, keeping only citation-specific guidance.

Make the validate → fix → re-validate feedback loop explicit in the Example Usage (e.g., after step 6, note that if validation.json lists unresolved errors, edit formatted.bib and re-run validate_citations.py).

Drop or tighten hedging phrases like '(if supported)' and '(if implemented/used)' in Implementation Details, since they obscure whether the bundled scripts actually support those features.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core sections (When to Use, Example Usage, Implementation Details) are efficient and citation-specific, but several appended boilerplate sections (Required Inputs, Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Input Validation, Quick Validation) are generic across skills and add tokens that do not teach Claude anything it does not already know.

3 / 5

Actionability

The Example Usage block gives a fully executable, copy-paste-ready 7-step bash workflow invoking real bundled scripts with concrete flags, and Implementation Details enumerate specific parameters per script covering the common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The numbered search → extract → format → validate workflow is clearly sequenced and includes an explicit validation step (--auto-fix, --report) with a follow-up inspection step, but the validate → fix → re-validate feedback loop is implicit rather than spelled out.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that delegates detail to one-level-deep reference files signaled with '(See: references/...)' markers, all of which exist in the bundle, and points to real scripts; content is appropriately split and easy to navigate.

5 / 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.

The description is strong across all dimensions: it is specific, uses natural trigger terms, explicitly answers both what and when, and occupies a clear distinct niche. Third-person voice is maintained throughout.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — discover papers, extract/verify metadata, and produce validated BibTeX — with specific sources (Google Scholar/PubMed) and identifier types (DOI/PMID/arXiv/URL), giving comprehensive coverage rather than minor gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly states both what it does ('discover papers... extract/verify metadata... produce validated, clean BibTeX') and when to use it ('use when you need to...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms users actually say — citation management, Google Scholar, PubMed, DOI, PMID, arXiv, BibTeX, manuscripts — including synonyms and identifier formats a researcher would naturally mention.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear academic-citation niche with distinct triggers (Scholar/PubMed search, BibTeX generation) and minimal overlap risk with other skills.

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.

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
aipoch/medical-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.