CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comprehensive-research-agent

Ensure thorough validation, error recovery, and transparent reasoning in research tasks with multiple tool calls

47

Quality

49%

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 ./bundled/skills/comprehensive-research-agent/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 content provides concrete, actionable instruction with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback loops, but suffers from significant redundancy across three overlapping sections plus irrelevant metadata padding, and fails to signal or navigate the provided bundle files. Tightening the redundant sections and removing the score/metadata sections would notably improve token efficiency.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'Patterns to Avoid', 'Recommended Practices', and 'Guidelines' sections into a single non-redundant set of rules to remove the triple restatement of the same concepts.

Remove the 'Score Expectations' and 'Skill Metadata' sections, which are optimizer-generated artifacts unrelated to skill execution and consume tokens without aiding Claude.

Reference the bundle files from the body (e.g., point to references/patterns_found.json for the pattern catalog) and split the long inline pattern/practice lists into a separate reference file for clearer progressive disclosure.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body restates the same ideas (validation, error acknowledgment, source tracking, read_file vs list_directory) across three overlapping sections ('Patterns to Avoid', 'Recommended Practices', 'Guidelines'), and the 'Score Expectations' and 'Skill Metadata' sections are padding unrelated to execution, matching 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'.

2 / 5

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, specific guidance (thinking blocks of 3-5+ sentences, explicit checklist items, a source-tracking table format, named tool read_file vs list_directory) with illustrative before/after examples, fitting 'mostly executable guidance; concrete... with minor gaps'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Validation checkpoints are explicit (pre-reading source evaluation, post-reading synthesis, pre-completion checklist) and an error-recovery feedback loop is present (tool failure -> acknowledge -> recovery strategy), fitting 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps', though the workflow is scattered across sections rather than one unified ordered sequence.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body has clear section headers but never references the bundle files in references/ (optimization_summary.json, optimized_prompt.txt, patterns_found.json), and substantial inline content could be split out, matching 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled'.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

42%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.

The description conveys a clear purpose (validation, error recovery, transparent reasoning in multi-tool research) but lacks any 'Use when' trigger guidance and uses generic keywords rather than natural user phrasing. It is moderately specific but somewhat generic and at risk of overlapping with related research skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when performing web research with search or fetch operations, gathering information from multiple sources, or verifying claims across sources').

Include concrete natural keywords users would say such as 'web research', 'search', 'read_url', 'source verification', and 'multi-step research' rather than abstract verbs.

Sharpen the niche to reduce conflict risk, e.g., by naming the specific failure modes the skill prevents (hallucinated citations, silent tool failures) instead of the broad 'research tasks'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('research tasks with multiple tool calls') and three concerns (validation, error recovery, transparent reasoning), but these are abstract verbs rather than concrete capabilities, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It states a clear 'what' (validation, error recovery, transparent reasoning) but includes no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Only two generic keywords ('research tasks', 'tool calls') appear with no natural user phrasing or synonyms (e.g., 'web research', 'search', 'verify sources'), fitting 'one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'.

2 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Research tasks with multiple tool calls' is somewhat specific but broad enough to overlap with general web-research or search skills, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.

3 / 5

Total

11

/

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
foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills
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.