CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

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)。

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

67%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 provides a clear, actionable, well-sequenced workflow with real script references and strong safety constraints, but token efficiency is diluted by inlined ecosystem boilerplate and the config.yaml reference is dangling. A post-edit validation step and trimming the generic constraints would raise quality further.

Suggestions

Move the '公共硬约束' boilerplate and the bensz-collect-bugs bug-reporting procedure out of the main workflow path (e.g., to a separate reference file or a clearly skippable appendix) so the task-relevant token budget stays lean.

Add an explicit post-edit validation step to the workflow — e.g., re-running the alignment check on the modified tex to confirm P0 fixes resolved the fatal citation errors before rendering.

Fix the dangling 'config.yaml' reference in the 校验 section: either ship config.yaml in the bundle or point to the actual location where the configuration lives.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core workflow is efficient, but the inlined '公共硬约束' boilerplate (BAC audit, generic SSRF/path/security constraints, version/CHANGELOG policy) and the bensz-collect-bugs bug-reporting procedure are ecosystem-level padding unrelated to the citation-check task. Not 2 because the task-specific sections themselves are tight and free of over-explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, runnable commands are given ('python3 scripts/run_ai_alignment.py --work-dir "…" --prepare' / '--render'), along with exact output paths, a six-value citation classification scheme, and an evidence-priority ladder. Not 5 because placeholder paths and the rendering dependency on an external skill leave minor gaps in copy-paste readiness.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The flow (预检与定位 → 结构化上下文抽取 → AI 语义核查 → 报告 → 渲染) is clearly sequenced with checkpoints such as '缺任何核心文件时立即停止' and a 失败与恢复 section specifying retry from the last failed step. Not 5 because there is no explicit post-modification re-validation loop for the edited tex file.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and the referenced scripts (scripts/run_ai_alignment.py, plus the other files in scripts/) are real bundle files with one-level-deep references. Not 5 because the 校验 section references 'config.yaml', which does not exist in the bundle, and the canonical common-constraints block is inlined rather than split out.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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, complete, and highly distinctive, with explicit trigger phrases and explicit non-applicability boundaries that prevent mis-triggering against sibling skills. The only weakness is modest synonym coverage in trigger terms.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — '逐条核查引用是否与文献内容吻合', minimal rewriting of only citation-containing sentences on fatal errors, and reusing research-literature-review's rendering scripts to output PDF/Word — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's behavior.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (semantic per-citation verification, minimal rewriting, PDF/Word rendering with fallback) and 'when' ('当用户明确要求…时使用') are explicitly and concretely answered, with additional non-applicability boundaries ('⚠️ 不适用:…').

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural triggers are present ('核查/优化综述 {主题}_review.tex 的正文引用', '运行 research-citation-check', plus the legacy name check-review-alignment), but common synonyms such as '检查引用' or 'citation check' phrasings are missing. Not 5 because coverage lacks these variations; not 3 because the included triggers are phrases users would naturally say.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (citation verification in existing review tex files) with explicit disambiguation against the nearest neighbors — research-literature-review for generating reviews and the bib management flow for BibTeX entries — giving minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

huangwb8/ChineseResearchLaTeX

Path

skills/research-citation-check/SKILL.md

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.