CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-citation-check

当用户明确要求"核查/优化综述 `{主题}_review.tex` 的正文引用"、"运行 research-citation-check",或要求使用旧名 check-review-alignment skill 时使用。通过宿主 AI 的语义理解逐条核查引用是否与文献内容吻合,只在发现致命性引用错误时对"包含引用的句子"做最小化改写,并优先复用 `research-literature-review` 的渲染脚本输出 PDF/Word,过渡期允许 fallback 到旧名 systematic-literature-review。核心原则:不为了改而改,无法确定是否为致命性错误时保留原样并在报告中警告。⚠️ 不适用:用户只是想生成系统综述正文(应使用 research-literature-review);用户只是想新增/核对 BibTeX 条目(应使用专门的 bib 管理流程)。

64

Quality

78%

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/research-citation-check/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

68%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 well-organized, concise, and actionable with real script references and a clear end-to-end flow. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validation feedback loop around the destructive minimal-rewrite of the tex file, which caps workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validate-then-retry loop for the tex rewrite step (e.g., re-run citation alignment on rewritten sentences to confirm the fatal error is resolved and no new errors were introduced).

De-duplicate the 输入 section (lines 14-17 and 28-30) and replace placeholder /path/to/ values with concrete invocation patterns or a single parameterized example.

Make the AI 语义核查 → 报告 handoff explicit about where per-citation verdicts (fake_citation, overclaim, etc.) are written, so the report step has a clear input contract.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean bullet/section structure with executable commands and no padding about LaTeX/BibTeX basics; minor redundancy (the 输入 section repeats) keeps it just below a 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete bash commands (run_ai_alignment.py --prepare/--render), enumerated citation-error categories, and explicit input/output file paths; placeholder /path/to/ values and a couple of underspecified steps are minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence (依赖检查→预检→抽取→核查→报告→渲染→输出) with stop-conditions and 失败与恢复 exists, but the destructive tex-rewrite step lacks an explicit validate-then-retry feedback loop, capping it per the destructive-operation rule.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned body with one-level references to real bundle files (scripts/run_ai_alignment.py, config.yaml, verified present); no nested/deep references, though the structure is scripts-only with no separate reference docs.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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 dense but highly specific, with explicit trigger conditions, clear what/when coverage, and sharp negative boundaries that prevent conflict with sibling skills. Its main weakness is verbosity and dense phrasing that slightly obscures the natural trigger terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the niche domain (citation checking of `{主题}_review.tex`) and lists several concrete actions — 逐条核查引用吻合性, 致命错误时最小化改写, 复用渲染脚本输出 PDF/Word — with minor coverage gaps on the full report/render surface.

4 / 5

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (核查引用、最小化改写、渲染输出) and 'when' (当用户明确要求...) with concrete trigger phrases and an explicit 不适用 negative-boundary clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural triggers are present ("核查/优化综述正文引用", "运行 research-citation-check", 旧名 check-review-alignment), covering likely user phrasings, though a few common synonyms are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (review.tex citation alignment) with explicit boundaries distinguishing it from research-literature-review and BibTeX management, minimizing wrong-skill trigger risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

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.