CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

research

Default entry point for any research request — a hybrid router that classifies the question deterministically and either delegates to a specialist research skill (pulse for trends/sentiment, grants for NIH funding, litreview for academic literature, syllabus for course reading, patent for prior-art + IP landscape, dossier for entity research, deepread for evidence-first reading of supplied documents) or runs its own plan-decompose-multi-source-search-synthesize-cite fallback workflow when no specialist matches. Always surfaces the routing decision so users can override. Use when the user makes any research request that doesn't obviously match a more-specific specialist skill (e.g., "research [topic]", "look into [topic]", "what do we know about [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find me information on [topic]", "do some research on [topic]", "I need to understand [topic]"). Output is a markdown briefing (default) or .docx document (on request) with full citations and an audit log.

64

Quality

81%

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

The canonical home for this skill is research in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

58%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 sequences the hybrid routing workflow exceptionally well — deterministic classification rules, per-question intake skip logic, retry and override feedback loops, and a failure-mode checklist. However, every referenced bundle file is absent, leaving the script invocations and Reference Docs section pointing at nonexistent paths, and the duplicated SIGNALS listings and overlapping Anti-Patterns/Failure-Modes sections cost tokens without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Ship the three scripts and three reference docs in the bundle, or remove the references and inline the required detail — all six cited paths currently resolve to nothing, which breaks both the Tooling invocations and the Reference Docs section.

Remove the duplicate SIGNALS listing: keep either the Specialist Registry table or the Phase 2 dict, not both, and make scripts/classifier.py the single source of truth (the "kept phrase-for-phrase in sync — drift = bug" note is itself a symptom of the duplication).

Merge "Anti-Patterns Rejected" into the "Failure Modes" table (they cover the same behaviors) and move the version/changelog footer into a maintainer note outside the runtime body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Prose is tight and assumes competence — no concept explanations — but the SIGNALS map is listed twice (the Specialist Registry table and the Phase 2 dict repeat ~60 phrases), "Anti-Patterns Rejected" largely reiterates the "Failure Modes" table, and the footer carries maintainer meta ("Version: 1.1.0", "Build pattern... per the 2026-06 newgen audit") that is time-sensitive and not runtime guidance. Not 4: the duplication and meta sections are more than minor trims; not 2: there is no padding of knowledge Claude already has.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in form — "scripts/classifier.py --question \"...\" --output json", verbatim intake questions, a templated audit-log block — but the Phase 2 classification block is explicitly pseudocode ("route_to = argmax(score)" over a symbolic SIGNALS dict), and the three scripts it defers to are absent from the bundle, so the commands are not executable as shipped. Fits anchor 3 ("pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details"); not 4 because the missing scripts leave the core mechanism unusable as written.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-phase workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit stop conditions ("After Q4 (or earlier if dependency skips applied), commit and start Phase 2"), skip rules per question, feedback loops for error recovery ("On failure → wait 3s → retry once → log. After 3 consecutive failures: stop, alert user"), an explicit routing-override loop, and a ten-row Failure Modes checklist. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of sequence + validation + recovery + checklist.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: all six referenced files — scripts/classifier.py, scripts/routing_transparency_logger.py, scripts/fallback_decomposer.py, references/hybrid_router_architecture.md, references/deterministic_classification_canon.md, references/fallback_workflow_canon.md — are missing from the bundle, so the "Reference Docs" section and every Tooling invocation point at paths that resolve to nothing, and the full SIGNALS map is inlined in the body though it belongs in the script. Not 3: the disclosure structure isn't merely imperfectly signaled, it is unfulfilled — no referenced path can actually be navigated.

2 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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 dense, third-person description that explicitly states what the router does, when to use it, and how it bounds itself against the specialist skills it routes to, with seven natural trigger phrasings. The only residual weakness is the broad "default entry point for any research request" framing, which keeps minor conflict risk with the specialists it names.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "classifies the question deterministically", "delegates to a specialist research skill", "runs its own plan-decompose-multi-source-search-synthesize-cite fallback workflow", "Always surfaces the routing decision so users can override", and "Output is a markdown briefing (default) or .docx document (on request) with full citations and an audit log". Not 4: coverage spans classification, delegation, fallback, override, and both output modes with no gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (hybrid router that classifies deterministically and delegates or runs the fallback workflow, with output formats) and when: "Use when the user makes any research request that doesn't obviously match a more-specific specialist skill" followed by concrete trigger phrases. Third-person voice throughout; no penalty applies.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger phrasings users would actually say: "research [topic]", "look into [topic]", "what do we know about [topic]", "investigate [topic]", "find me information on [topic]", "do some research on [topic]", "I need to understand [topic]". Includes synonym variations of the same intent, matching the anchor-5 example's breadth.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Overlap is actively managed — the when-clause excludes requests that "obviously match a more-specific specialist skill" and the seven routed specialists are enumerated — but the broad opening claim "Default entry point for any research request" plus naming the sibling specialists leaves some trigger risk for queries that should go straight to a specialist (e.g., a plain "literature review" request). Not 5 because of that unbounded default-entry framing; not 3 because the specialist boundary is explicitly drawn.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

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

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 9 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

.gemini/skills/research-bundle/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.