CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ulw-research

Maximum-saturation research orchestration: ALWAYS proposes the final materials first (PDF+DOCX default), then parallel explore+librarian swarms across codebase, web, official docs, and OSS repos — max-roster teammode when the harness has it — with live journaling, a recursive EXPAND loop driven by leads workers return in message text, empirical verification by running code, and a cited synthesis with charts/Mermaid/assets behind a mandatory visual-QA gate. ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user demand for research — the word 'ulw-research' ('/ulw-research', '$ulw-research'), any 'ulw' research wording, 'ultradebate' or 'hyperdebate' research requests, or an explicit request for research / deep research / an ultra-precise investigation, in any language. Never self-activates for ordinary questions, debugging, or implementation context-gathering. While active it overrides exploration-bounding defaults: exhaustive coverage is the goal.

66

Quality

79%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/omo/skills/ulw-research/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%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 a thorough, well-sequenced orchestration protocol with strong workflow clarity and executable examples. Its weaknesses are length/repetition and a monolithic structure that should offload reference material into bundle files.

Suggestions

Move the epistemic-instrumentation artifact schemas (intent-diff, claim-graph, observation-manifest field lists) and the Search craft operator table into reference files under ./references/, leaving SKILL.md a concise overview that links to them.

Collapse the Failure modes table into the phase sections it references, or move it to a reference file, to remove the duplicated emphasis that inflates token cost.

Tighten the repeated 'always/never' authority framing — state the override-once rule once in the Authority section and let the phase steps reference it without restating.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

It does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but it is padded with repeated rhetorical emphasis — the authority claims are restated, and the Failure modes table largely duplicates rules already stated in the phase sections — so it could be tightened considerably.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance — `task(subagent_type="explore", ...)` spawn blocks, the `mkdir -p .omo/ulw-research/...` command, `chrome --headless --print-to-pdf`, `pandoc ... -o <out.docx>`, and the EXPAND tail template — with only minor gaps from placeholder fields like `<angle>` and `<lead>`.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Phase 0-5 sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (format-proposal gate, visual-QA delivery gate, asset-manifest verification) and feedback loops (validate -> fix -> re-render; convergence rules), so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are well organized, but the skill is a ~394-line monolith with no bundle files; the epistemic-instrumentation field schemas, Search craft, and Failure modes clearly belong in separate reference files rather than inlined in SKILL.md.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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, explicit description that clearly states both capability and activation conditions with concrete actions. Its main weakness is reliance on proprietary jargon for triggers rather than the full range of natural user phrasings.

Suggestions

Add a few more natural-language trigger synonyms a user would actually say (e.g. 'investigate this thoroughly', 'do a literature review', 'compare the options in depth') alongside the jargon terms.

Consider trimming the dense mid-sentence detail (EXPAND loop mechanics, journaling) so the description reads as a crisp capability statement rather than an embedded protocol summary.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'proposes the final materials first (PDF+DOCX default)', 'parallel explore+librarian swarms across codebase, web, official docs, and OSS repos', 'recursive EXPAND loop', 'empirical verification by running code', 'cited synthesis with charts/Mermaid/assets behind a mandatory visual-QA gate' — giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (the orchestration pipeline) and when ('ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user demand for research ... Never self-activates for ordinary questions, debugging, or implementation context-gathering') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases ('research', 'deep research', 'an ultra-precise investigation') and explicit activation spellings ('/ulw-research', '$ulw-research'), but it leans heavily on skill-specific jargon ('ulw', 'ultradebate', 'hyperdebate') and lacks broader synonym/extension coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The hard opt-in gate and jargon triggers make it mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk, but the generic 'research / deep research' wording leaves minor overlap risk with other research-flavored skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
code-yeongyu/lazycodex
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.