CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

nsfc-research-content-writer

当用户明确要求"写/改研究内容""研究内容+创新+年度计划编排"时使用。为 NSFC 正文"(二)研究内容"写作/重构,并同步编排"特色与创新"和"三年年度研究计划",输出可直接落到 LaTeX 模板的三个 extraTex 文件。

67

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 well-structured, actionable instruction skill with excellent progressive disclosure via real reference files. The main improvement area is tightening the redundant philosophical prose and making the validation feedback loop explicit.

Suggestions

Consolidate the '写作哲学' two-phase model with the workflow steps to remove restated guidance and tighten conciseness.

Make the consistency-check feedback loop explicit (e.g., 'if 校验 fails, revise 2.1/2.2/2.3 and re-run 校验 until passing') to strengthen workflow_clarity.

Trim motivational phrasing in '写作哲学' to concrete heuristics, since Claude already understands expert writing norms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly dense and actionable, but the '写作哲学' section and the two-phase restatement partly restate workflow guidance already covered, yielding minor over-explanation that could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete file paths, explicit structure (问题→目标→内容→路线→验证), page/word budgets, and hard constraints (禁止改动 main.tex); as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized, with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with a step-6 一致性校验 checkpoint and a referenced DoD checklist, though the validate→fix→retry feedback loop is only implicit rather than explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep references (info_form, dod_checklist, subgoal_triplet_examples, etc.), all of which exist as real files in references/.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

87%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 is specific, trigger-explicit, and clearly scoped to an NSFC proposal-writing niche with concrete file outputs. Its main weakness is slightly limited trigger-term synonym coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — '写作/重构' 研究内容, '编排' 特色与创新与年度研究计划, '输出...三个 extraTex 文件' — with minor gaps in coverage rather than full comprehensiveness.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (为 NSFC 正文写作/重构并编排三个部分、输出三文件) and when (当用户明确要求…时使用) with concrete trigger phrases, so it is not capped at 3.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases like '写/改研究内容' and '研究内容+创新+年度计划编排' that a user would plausibly say, though synonym/extension coverage is limited.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear NSFC-proposal niche with distinct triggers and concrete LaTeX extraTex outputs, minimizing overlap with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
huangwb8/ChineseResearchLaTeX
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.