persona-researcher
Organize research — manage references, notes, and collaboration.
40
26%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/persona-researcher/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
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 distinctive language that would differentiate it from other organizational or note-management skills. The broad terms 'organize', 'manage', and 'collaboration' provide little actionable information for Claude to determine when to select this skill.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with specific trigger terms like 'bibliography', 'citations', 'literature review', 'research papers', 'reference management', or 'annotate sources'.
Replace vague verbs like 'manage' and 'organize' with concrete actions such as 'format bibliographies in APA/MLA style', 'tag and categorize research papers', 'generate citation lists', or 'create annotated bibliographies'.
Narrow the scope to distinguish this skill from general note-taking or collaboration tools — specify the research domain (e.g., academic research, literature reviews) and the unique capabilities it offers.
| 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 vaguely addresses 'what' (organize research, manage references/notes/collaboration) 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 description is very generic — 'manage notes' and 'collaboration' could overlap with note-taking skills, project management skills, or general document organization skills. There is nothing that carves out a clear niche. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is concise but lacks substance. The instructions read as a generic checklist of research activities rather than actionable guidance — there are no concrete examples, no specific commands with parameters, and no defined workflow sequence. It essentially tells Claude to 'do research organization' without teaching it how.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable command examples for each instruction (e.g., show the exact `gws drive` command to create a research folder structure, or a `gws sheets +append` command with sample research data columns).
Define a clear multi-step workflow for a typical research task, such as: 1) Create folder structure, 2) Log findings in Sheet, 3) Write summary doc, 4) Share with collaborators — with validation between steps.
Include at least one end-to-end example showing input (research task) and the sequence of commands/actions to complete it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and brief, with no unnecessary explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Every line provides a specific instruction or tip. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are vague and high-level ('Organize research papers and notes in Drive folders') without concrete commands, executable examples, or specific parameters. It describes what to do abstractly rather than providing copy-paste ready guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is no sequenced workflow — just a bullet list of loosely related tasks with no ordering, dependencies, or validation checkpoints. A research management workflow should have clear steps for organizing, documenting, and sharing. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | It references prerequisite skills and a workflow (`gws workflow +file-announce`), providing some structure and navigation. However, the references are not clearly signaled with links or descriptions of what each referenced skill contains. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
c7c6646
- 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.