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)。

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

Quality

Content

65%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-structured and actionable with concrete commands and a clear taxonomy, but it rewrites the user's review.tex without an explicit validation/feedback loop and carries a broken config.yaml reference plus un-navigated helper scripts.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation/feedback loop for the rewrite and render steps (e.g. 'After rewriting, re-check the citation still supports the sentence and confirm LaTeX still compiles; on render failure, fix and re-render') to lift workflow_clarity past the destructive/batch cap.

Remove or fix the 'config.yaml' reference (the file is not in the bundle) and either create it or point to the actual config location so the reference is not a dead end.

Briefly note the helper scripts in '参考与验证' (bib_utils.py, paragraph_analyzer.py, runtime_utils.py) so the bundle structure is discoverable one level deep from the overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and bullet-driven and assumes Claude's knowledge of LaTeX/BibTeX/PDF rendering; the only trims available are minor redundancy — '核心原则' repeats principles already in the description and '定位' overlaps the frontmatter — so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-pasteable commands ('python3 scripts/run_ai_alignment.py --work-dir … --prepare/--render'), an explicit citation-problem taxonomy (fake_citation, wrong_citation, …), evidence-priority rules, and specific output file paths; minor gaps remain in placeholder paths and the under-specified ai_alignment_input.json schema ('至少包含…').

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence is present, but this skill rewrites sentences across the user's existing *_review.tex (a destructive, batch-over-citations document modification) with no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for the rewrite or render step, which caps workflow_clarity at 3 per the rubric's destructive/batch feedback-loop rule.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are reasonably organized, but scored against the actual bundle the body references a non-existent 'config.yaml' (broken navigation) and only names the run_ai_alignment.py entry point while three real helper scripts (bib_utils.py, paragraph_analyzer.py, runtime_utils.py) are present but un-signaled — references are present but not cleanly verified against the bundle.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

A strong, trigger-rich description that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with explicit exclusion guidance to avoid sibling-skill conflicts. The main gap is trigger-term breadth — a few natural user phrasings and synonyms are not surfaced.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names three concrete actions — '逐条核查引用是否与文献内容吻合' (per-citation semantic checking), '最小化改写包含引用的句子' (minimal rewrite of citation-bearing sentences), and '复用 research-literature-review 的渲染脚本输出 PDF/Word' (reuse rendering to output PDF/Word) — giving good coverage with only minor gaps versus the full workflow.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (check citations against literature, minimal rewrite on fatal errors, render PDF/Word) and 'when' via the concrete trigger clause '当用户明确要求…时使用' with multiple trigger phrases, plus the '⚠️ 不适用' exclusion guidance.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with synonyms ('核查/优化' = check/optimize), the skill name 'research-citation-check', the deprecated alias 'check-review-alignment', and file patterns '{主题}_review.tex' / '.bib'; a few natural phrasings (e.g. '检查引用', '参考文献核对', 'citation alignment') are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (semantic citation checking of an existing review.tex) plus explicit '不适用' exclusions against the two closest siblings — research-literature-review (generating the review body) and the bib-management flow — and explicit deprecated-alias handling, giving a distinct trigger surface with minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

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

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

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.