CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

paper-write-sci

根据 LaTeX 论文项目撰写、修订和润色 SCI 期刊论文,默认 AI 自主模式,也支持人机协作仅输出审查计划;提供作者风格化写作、数字事实核验、逻辑树多轮审查与 PDF/Word 渲染闭环。⚠️ 不适用:仅改格式/样式参数、纯参考文献管理、图片处理、非论文写作任务。

63

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/paper-write-sci/SKILL.md
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.

The body is a well-structured, actionable, multi-phase workflow with strong validation feedback loops and clean progressive disclosure; its main weakness is mild redundancy from repeated reference path listings and shared boilerplate.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the reference file listings (lines 79–88 and 181–192) into a single '参考资料' section to reduce token cost.

Inline the key config.yaml values referenced by the workflow (e.g. mode/style defaults, run_dir_pattern) or point to one config reference instead of scattering config.yaml:… keys throughout.

Specify the concrete rendering invocation for the detected build chain rather than only naming the tools.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational without explaining basic concepts, but reference file paths are listed twice (lines 79–88 and 181–192) and the 公共硬约束 boilerplate is verbose, so it could be noticeably tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete executable guidance is present — the copy-paste-ready prepare_workspace.py CLI invocation, concrete template/reference paths, fixed section ordering, and named build tools — but rendering commands are left unspecified and many values are deferred to config.yaml keys, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 阶段0–5 workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (数字审查, section-role-check, 全文一致性终审, 逻辑树终审) and feedback loops ('若有阻塞性问题,修复后再复审'), supported by referenced checklists/templates.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md acts as an overview that delegates long rule blocks to one-level-deep references (verified to exist) with categorized '优先只读取' and '读取建议' navigation guidance, giving clear 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.

The description is specific and well-scoped with strong distinctiveness, but it states what the skill does without an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, leaving the invocation condition only implied.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as 'Use when writing, revising, or polishing an SCI journal paper from a LaTeX project' to raise completeness above 3.

Include a couple of natural user synonyms (e.g. manuscript, 校对/核对) alongside 论文/润色 to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Consider naming the .tex extension explicitly so file-based triggers match more directly.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 撰写/修订/润色, 作者风格化写作, 数字事实核验, 逻辑树多轮审查, PDF/Word 渲染 — plus explicit negative scope, giving comprehensive coverage rather than a single generic verb.

5 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear and detailed, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied by the domain and the ⚠️ 不适用 exclusions, so completeness is capped at 3 per the missing-trigger guideline.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present (SCI 期刊论文, LaTeX 论文项目, 润色, 人机协作) with file formats (PDF/Word), but a few common synonyms (e.g. manuscript, 校对) are missing so it is not fully exhaustive.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (LaTeX SCI paper writing with author-style + number/logic verification) combined with explicit 不适用 exclusions (formatting-only, reference management, image processing) minimizes conflict with adjacent skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing, 17 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

14

/

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.