CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

litreview

Searches academic literature through free, keyless PubMed and OpenAlex APIs, optionally augments results with Consensus MCP when connected, builds a PICO, SPIDER, decomposition, or hybrid search plan, and produces a formatted Word research-orientation guide. Uses brief intake and post-reconnaissance checkpoints to confirm the framework, sub-areas, and depth (5, 10, or 20 queries) before spending the search budget. The output is a launching pad, not a finished review. Use when the user requests a literature review, starts a paper or literature-oriented research project, or needs structured research on a topic. Do NOT use for a single paper lookup or a quick paper list; use a plain PubMed, OpenAlex, or Consensus query instead.

75

Quality

94%

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

92%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 dense, operational skill body: executable search tooling, a gated multi-phase workflow with validation and feedback loops, and a verified one-level reference structure. Its only real cost is repetition of the lane-check rule and a maintainer-facing metadata footer.

Suggestions

State the Consensus lane-check rule once (Search Lanes) and drop the repeated 'no tier detection' phrasing from Agent Integrity Rules, Anti-Patterns, and the version footer — the behavior is identical each time.

Move the maintainer provenance (source spec path, PR #657 audit notes, gitignored-file remarks) out of the agent-facing body or into the frontmatter metadata so it stops competing for context.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Largely lean operational content — exact URL templates with response-field mappings, copy-paste script invocations, budget tables, an error-handling matrix — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor redundancy keeps it from 5: the Consensus lane-check rule ("do not attempt tier detection") is restated in Search Lanes, Agent Integrity Rules, Anti-Patterns, and the version footer, and the maintainer-facing footer (source spec, PR-audit provenance, gitignored-file notes) adds tokens that don't help execution. Not 3: there is no padded or unnecessary explanatory section.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: exact E-utilities/OpenAlex URL templates with the JSON fields to read, script commands that match the actual argparse interfaces (verified: --query/--source pubmed|openalex|both/--max/--json, exit 2 offline; citation_tracker --action record_search/record_papers_received with --session/--query/--count), per-tier search recipes (e.g. "2 review article searches... OpenAlex: add &filter=type:review"), and a runnable DOCX validation one-liner. The DOCX generation side is fully specified in the one-level-deep references/docx_8_sections.md, so common cases are covered copy-paste ready.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0–4 are clearly sequenced with an explicit hard checkpoint ("Wait for user response before Phase 3. Refuse to start Phase 3 without explicit user choice"), a retry feedback loop (wait 3s → retry once → stop and alert after 3 consecutive failures), rate-limit discipline (1 query/sec sequential), and a DOCX validation step with fix-repack loop plus audit-log checklist. This batch-search workflow matches the top anchor: explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references: all three referenced files exist (framework_selection.md, search_budget_allocation.md, docx_8_sections.md — confirmed on disk), each is described in a References section, scripts are mapped in a Tooling table, and the references point to scripts and external URLs rather than nested .md chains (verified). Content is appropriately split with a concise inline summary plus full canon in each reference.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: concrete third-person capabilities, explicit use-when triggers, and a negative boundary that sharply reduces conflict risk. The only gap is synonym coverage for the trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add natural synonyms users actually say — e.g. 'lit review', 'survey of the literature', 'find papers or sources on a topic' — to the Use-when clause to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Searches academic literature through free, keyless PubMed and OpenAlex APIs", "builds a PICO, SPIDER, decomposition, or hybrid search plan", "produces a formatted Word research-orientation guide", and "confirm the framework, sub-areas, and depth (5, 10, or 20 queries)" — inputs, methods, depth tiers, and output format are all explicitly named in third-person voice. Not 4: coverage goes beyond 'several specific actions with minor gaps' — every capability dimension (source, method, interaction model, output) is concretely stated.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — searches PubMed/OpenAlex/Consensus, builds a framework search plan, produces a Word orientation guide; when — "Use when the user requests a literature review, starts a paper or literature-oriented research project, or needs structured research on a topic", with a concrete Do-NOT-use boundary clause. This matches the top anchor exactly (clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-phrase coverage: "literature review", "starts a paper or literature-oriented research project", "needs structured research on a topic", plus negative triggers "single paper lookup" and "quick paper list". A few natural terms are missing — users would also say "lit review", "survey of the literature", "find papers/sources", or "systematic review" — so it falls short of the comprehensive-synonym anchor at 5 while clearly exceeding 'some relevant keywords' at 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (academic literature orientation via named APIs and review frameworks) with minimal conflict risk: the explicit carve-out "Do NOT use for a single paper lookup or a quick paper list; use a plain PubMed, OpenAlex, or Consensus query instead" disambiguates it from plain search skills. Distinct triggers (framework names, depth tiers, orientation-guide output) make wrong-skill triggering unlikely.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

research/litreview/skills/litreview/SKILL.md

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.