persona-researcher

Organize research — manage references, notes, and collaboration.

Quality

18%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/persona-researcher/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

22%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill reads more like a brief brainstorm of what a researcher persona could do rather than actionable guidance. It lacks concrete examples, executable commands, structured workflows, and any validation or error-handling steps. The content would benefit significantly from specific folder structure templates, example commands with arguments, and a clear step-by-step research management workflow.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable command examples (e.g., a full `gws drive` command to create a research folder structure, or a `gws sheets +append` command with sample data columns).

Define a clear multi-step workflow for a common research task (e.g., 'Adding a new paper: 1. Create folder → 2. Upload PDF → 3. Log metadata in Sheet → 4. Notify collaborators') with explicit sequencing.

Provide a specific example folder structure or Sheet schema (columns, data types) so Claude knows exactly what to create rather than improvising.

Replace vague instructions like 'Organize research papers and notes in Drive folders' with specific, actionable patterns including the exact commands and arguments to use.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Reasonably brief and doesn't over-explain concepts, but the content is thin rather than efficiently dense — it lists generic advice without adding much Claude wouldn't already know about organizing research.	2 / 3
Actionability	The instructions are vague directives ('Organize research papers and notes in Drive folders') with no concrete commands, code examples, folder structures, or specific workflows. Nothing is copy-paste ready or executable.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no sequenced workflow — just a bullet list of loosely related actions with no ordering, dependencies, validation steps, or feedback loops for any multi-step research management process.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to prerequisite skills and a workflow are present and one-level deep, but the references are not clearly signaled with links or paths, and the main content itself is too thin to serve as a useful overview.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

14%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This description is too vague and generic to effectively guide skill selection. It lacks concrete actions, explicit trigger conditions, and sufficient specificity to distinguish it from other skills involving notes, collaboration, or organization. The description reads more like a tagline than a functional skill description.

Suggestions

List specific concrete actions such as 'Format citations in APA/MLA/Chicago style, build annotated bibliographies, organize literature review notes, and track source metadata'.

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when the user asks about citations, bibliographies, reference management, literature reviews, or organizing academic sources'.

Include distinctive terms that narrow the scope, such as file formats (.bib, .ris), specific workflows (systematic review, citation management), or tool-related keywords to reduce conflict with generic note-taking or collaboration skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description uses vague language like 'organize research', 'manage references, notes, and collaboration' without listing concrete actions. It doesn't specify what managing means (e.g., add citations, format bibliographies, tag notes, share documents).	1 / 3
Completeness	The description only weakly addresses 'what' with vague terms and completely lacks a 'when' clause or explicit trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also weak, so this scores a 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant keywords like 'research', 'references', 'notes', and 'collaboration' that users might naturally say, but misses common variations like 'bibliography', 'citations', 'literature review', 'annotate', or 'Zotero/Mendeley'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The terms 'notes', 'collaboration', and 'organize' are extremely generic and would easily conflict with note-taking skills, project management skills, or general document organization skills. 'Research' is also broad enough to overlap with many domains.	1 / 3
	Total	5 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: googleworkspace/cli
Commit: a3768d0

Reviewed: 2 months ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.