CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

research

Research phase of RPI methodology. Spawns parallel subagents for codebase exploration AND web/pattern research, then synthesizes findings for user review. Produces compact research artifact. Use at the start of non-trivial features.

Quality

80%

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 ./.tessl/tiles/lightfactory/crafter/skills/research/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is research in ericjohnolson/tessl-test

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 well-structured orchestration skill: the workflow is clearly sequenced with a required user-review feedback loop, and both reference files are real, one level deep, and well signaled. Its main weakness is redundancy — the phase-complete/clear-context message is repeated across four sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Merge "After Research" and "Context Compaction" into the "STOP — Phase Complete" section (or vice versa) — the /clear rationale and next steps are currently stated three to four times.

Trim the "When to Use" bullet list, which largely restates the opening paragraph and the depth-signal table.

Show one dispatch call in full Task tool syntax (parameters, run_in_background) alongside the stylized example so the dispatch step is copy-paste executable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient (imperative steps, tight tables), but the stop/clear→/draft message is repeated across the "Research Complete" output block, "STOP — Phase Complete", "After Research", and "Context Compaction", and "When to Use" restates the intro — it could be tightened by consolidating these.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout — exact artifact path pattern, a six-call example dispatch, exact required output format — but the dispatch snippets are stylized ("Task(Explore): \"...\"") rather than exact tool-call syntax, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Six numbered steps in clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: a required user-approval feedback loop ("Repeat until the user approves"), poll/collect handling of thin results, and hard STOP boundaries. This is not a destructive/batch operation, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with both bundle files (references/agent-prompts.md, references/template.md) verified to exist, one level deep, and clearly signaled inline; content is appropriately split with easy navigation.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 in third-person voice that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with several concrete actions and a distinct methodological niche. Its main gaps are missing natural synonyms (e.g., "investigate") and a when-clause that names a condition rather than concrete user trigger phrases.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger synonyms to the description (e.g., "investigate", "explore before planning") so it matches phrases users actually say.

Make the when-clause more concrete by tying it to user utterances, e.g., "Use when the user asks to research or investigate a non-trivial feature before planning."

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ("Spawns parallel subagents for codebase exploration AND web/pattern research", "synthesizes findings for user review", "Produces compact research artifact") with minor gaps in coverage — the actions stay at the orchestration level without detail on artifact contents or the review loop.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what (parallel subagents → synthesis → compact artifact) and when ("Use at the start of non-trivial features") are explicitly stated; the when is a clear condition but lacks concrete trigger phrases tied to user utterances, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords present ("Research", "codebase exploration", "web/pattern research", "non-trivial features"), but common synonyms users would naturally say such as "investigate" or "look into" are missing from the description itself.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Research phase of RPI methodology" carves a clear niche within a phased methodology and is mostly distinct from generic exploration skills; minor overlap risk remains because "research" is a common term and pure-research requests could false-trigger.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

ericjohnolson/tessl-test

Path

.tessl/tiles/lightfactory/crafter/skills/research/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.