homelab-research-librarian

Researches, evaluates, and documents homelab tooling, self-hosted apps, and infrastructure patterns.

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/homelab-research-librarian/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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-organized, concise research workflow with a concrete output template and named evaluation criteria. Its main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/verification checkpoint between evaluation and recommendation.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step before recommending, e.g. 'Verify the comparison table is complete and scores are consistent before stating a recommendation.'

Specify where/how options are surveyed (e.g. self-hosted directories, GitHub, docs) and the exact Obsidian write path/format to make the Survey and Document steps fully executable.

Remove the opening restatement of the frontmatter description to trim redundancy and lift conciseness toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and free of over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, with well-scoped workflow steps and a compact output template; the opening paragraph partially restates the frontmatter description, which is a minor trim opportunity keeping it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	It gives concrete, specific guidance — the five named scoring dimensions (ease of deployment, community support, resource usage, security posture, maintenance burden) and a copy-paste output-format template — which is mostly executable for an instruction-only skill; it is not a 5 because search sources and the exact Obsidian write mechanism are left implicit.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The six steps (Define → Survey → Evaluate → Compare → Recommend → Document) are clearly sequenced, but there is no explicit validation/verification checkpoint (e.g. confirm the comparison table before recommending), fitting 'steps listed but validation gaps'; the workflow is non-destructive so the destructive cap does not apply, but the missing checkpoint still holds it at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references (references/ and scripts/ contain only .gitkeep) and is organized into clear sections (Invocation, Workflow Steps, Output Format, Companion Skills), matching the rubric's under-50-line exception for a 5.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

58%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 concise and uses correct third-person voice to name a distinct homelab niche with three concrete actions. Its main weakness is the complete absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and limits trigger-term quality.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when researching homelab tooling, evaluating self-hosted alternatives, or comparing infrastructure patterns.'

Include natural synonyms or variations users might say (e.g. 'self-hosting', 'home server', 'open-source alternatives') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Mention the concrete output artifact (comparison notes / decision records) in the description to sharpen the 'what'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names three concrete actions ('Researches, evaluates, and documents') across a defined domain ('homelab tooling, self-hosted apps, and infrastructure patterns'), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor; it is not a 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (no formats, output types, or finer-grained actions).	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' (researches, evaluates, documents homelab tooling) but offers no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause, so per the rubric's cap completeness is held at 3 rather than 4.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'homelab tooling', 'self-hosted apps', and 'infrastructure patterns' are relevant natural terms, but the description lacks common synonyms or variations and provides no explicit trigger guidance; this fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the broader coverage of a 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The homelab/self-hosted niche is a clear, distinct domain unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; it is not a 5 because the generic verb 'researches' could still lightly overlap with general research skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: pvnkmnk/AgenticSelfHostSkills
Path: skills/homelab-research-librarian/SKILL.md
Commit: 0f62e6b

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.