CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-start

Research roadmap for a legal issue — statutes to check, case law areas to investigate, regulatory frameworks, Westlaw search terms. Leads and frameworks, NOT authoritative citations; students verify and develop everything. Use when a student asks where to start researching, wants a research roadmap for an issue, or needs gaps identified in existing research.

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

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 with a well-sequenced, validation-rich workflow appropriate to fabrication-risk legal leads. Its one weakness is conciseness: rationale prose and repeated "leads not authorities" framing could be trimmed without losing clarity.

Suggestions

Cut the inferable rationale paragraphs (e.g., 'Legal research is essential to clinical education... Students spend hours finding the starting point...' and 'This is a pedagogical safeguard, not just an ethical one') since Claude already understands why research roadmaps matter.

Consolidate the repeated 'leads not authorities' framing — it currently appears in the header, Purpose, Step 3's 'No silent supplement', the output banner, 'What this skill does NOT do', and the closing cite-verification block; stating it once prominently and referencing it would reduce tokens.

Consider moving the large inline output-template block into a referenced file if the skill grows, though it is acceptable inline at its current size.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but carries rationale/purpose prose Claude can infer ("Legal research is essential to clinical education... Students spend hours...", "This is a pedagogical safeguard, not just an ethical one") and repeats the "leads not authorities" framing across the header, Purpose, Step 3, the output banner, and the closing cite-verification block; tightening these would earn score 3.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives fully concrete, copy-ready guidance — real Westlaw/CourtListener query syntax ("warranty of habitability" /s heat! & [State]), bracketed blockquote templates, an exact thin-result messaging script with four numbered options, and a source-attribution tag taxonomy — matching the fully-executable anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–4 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints — VERIFY flags, UNCERTAIN blocks, the "No silent supplement" stopping rule, and the citator verification step — plus a feedback loop for the fabrication-risk core of the task, satisfying the clear-sequence-with-validation anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

It is a self-contained, single-purpose skill with no bundle files and no nested references; sections are cleanly organized with headers and there is no monolithic wall or 2+-level nesting, so per the simple-skills note it earns score 3 for well-organized content.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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: it names concrete deliverables, includes explicit natural-language trigger guidance, covers both what and when, and occupies a clearly distinct niche. No changes needed.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete action areas — "statutes to check, case law areas to investigate, regulatory frameworks, Westlaw search terms" — matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions rather than just naming a domain with some actions (score 2).

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Research roadmap... statutes... case law areas... Westlaw search terms. Leads and frameworks, NOT authoritative citations") and when ("Use when a student asks where to start researching..."), satisfying the both-what-and-when anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrasing a user would say — "where to start researching," "research roadmap for an issue," "gaps identified in existing research" — gives good coverage of common variations, not just generic or jargon terms (score 1) or partial keywords (score 2).

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The legal-clinic research-roadmap niche and the "leads not authorities" framing give clear distinct triggers unlikely to overlap with other skills; it is not a generic skill that could conflict (score 1) or only somewhat specific (score 2).

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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
anthropics/claude-for-legal
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.