CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-plan

科研分析策略规划助手。根据用户的科研分析需求,通过调研顶尖期刊/会议论文的分析方法,制定个性化、可落地的最优分析策略。适用于需要制定实验设计、数据分析流程、技术路线的场景;兼容旧名 make-research-plan 的 prompt 触发。

58

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/research-plan/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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 action-rich with concrete schemas, sources, and templates across a clearly sequenced multi-stage workflow. Weaknesses are limited validation feedback loops for batch literature operations and some generic/padded prose that could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Add explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops for the batch steps (e.g., after PDF download and after relevance scoring) to raise workflow_clarity above 3.

Trim generic best-practice and AI-execution principles ('透明性', '保守性', etc.) that do not add skill-specific actionable knowledge, improving token efficiency.

Reference the existing but currently-unlinked reference files (literature-search-guide.md, methodology-extraction-patterns.md) from the relevant workflow steps so all bundle content is navigable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete schemas and directory layouts, but generic padded prose ('透明性', '可追溯性', '保守性', '用户中心' best-practices, and a restating troubleshooting section) could be trimmed; fits the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete JSON output schemas, named data sources (PubMed, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, arXiv, Semantic Scholar), explicit thresholds (score ≥7, 15-30 papers), naming conventions, and Unpaywall usage give mostly executable guidance; a few steps remain abstract ('AI 语义分析识别 Methods 章节内容') and no runnable code is inlined, keeping it just below 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are clearly sequenced across 阶段0-3 with per-step 目标/方法/输出 and some checkpoints (directory validation, scoring threshold, plan review), but batch operations (multi-paper search/download/scoring) lack explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops, so the batch-operation cap of 3 applies.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with real one-level-deep references to output-templates.md and implementation-notes.md, and concrete scripts present (initialize.py, validate.py, bibtex.py, utils.py); minor gaps since literature-search-guide.md and methodology-extraction-patterns.md are not referenced in the body and scripts are not directly navigated.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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 clear, distinct, and explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger phrases. Specificity and trigger-term coverage are adequate but could list more concrete actions and natural synonyms.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 more specific concrete actions (e.g., 'extract methods from PDFs', 'generate references.bib') to lift specificity from 3 to 4-5.

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users actually say (e.g., 'research plan', 'study design', 'analysis pipeline', 'methodology') alongside the current ones.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (科研分析策略) and two concrete actions ('调研顶尖期刊/会议论文的分析方法', '制定个性化、可落地的最优分析策略'), but does not enumerate several specific actions; matches the 1-2 concrete-actions anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' (plan personalized research analysis strategies by investigating top journal/conference methods) and 'when' ('适用于需要制定实验设计、数据分析流程、技术路线的场景') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the explicit what-and-when anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('实验设计、数据分析流程、技术路线', 'make-research-plan' alias) but common variations/synonyms a user would naturally say are limited; fits the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (literature-driven research analysis strategy planning) with distinct triggers and an alias, giving minimal overlap with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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.