agent-researcher
Agent skill for researcher - invoke with $agent-researcher
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:ruvnet/claude-flow --skill agent-researcher51
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillEvaluation — 98%
↑ 1.88xAgent success when using this skill
Validation for skill structure
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is critically deficient across all dimensions. It provides no information about what the skill does, when to use it, or what distinguishes it from other skills. The description reads more like a label than a functional description that would help Claude select the appropriate skill.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Searches academic databases, synthesizes findings from multiple sources, generates literature reviews')
Include an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms users would say (e.g., 'Use when the user asks for research, literature review, source gathering, or academic investigation')
Define the specific research domain or methodology to distinguish from other potential research-related skills (e.g., 'academic research', 'market research', 'competitive analysis')
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. 'Agent skill for researcher' is completely abstract with no indication of what the skill actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer both 'what does this do' and 'when should Claude use it'. There is no explanation of capabilities and no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent guidance. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The only potential trigger term is 'researcher' which is overly generic. The '$agent-researcher' is a command syntax, not a natural keyword users would say when needing research help. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | 'Researcher' is extremely generic and could conflict with any skill involving research, analysis, information gathering, or investigation. There are no distinct triggers to differentiate it. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable framework for a research agent with useful MCP integration examples and structured output formats. However, it suffers from verbosity in explaining concepts Claude already understands, incomplete code examples that aren't fully executable, and missing validation checkpoints in the research workflow. The content would benefit from being more concise and splitting detailed reference material into separate files.
Suggestions
Remove explanatory text about general research principles (e.g., 'Good research is the foundation...') and focus on project-specific instructions
Make code examples fully executable with real file paths or clear placeholders, and add expected output examples
Add explicit validation steps to the research methodology (e.g., 'Verify search returned results before proceeding', 'Confirm file exists before reading')
Extract the YAML output format template and MCP tool examples into separate reference files, keeping only a brief overview in the main skill
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill contains some unnecessary verbosity, particularly in explaining general research concepts Claude already knows (e.g., 'Good research is the foundation of successful implementation'). The YAML output format template and methodology sections could be more concise. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides some concrete examples (grep commands, MCP tool calls) but many are pseudocode or incomplete. The bash examples use placeholder patterns rather than executable commands, and the JavaScript MCP examples lack complete context for execution. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in the methodology section but lack explicit validation checkpoints. The 'Broad to Narrow' search strategy shows sequence but doesn't include verification steps or error handling for when searches return no results. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into logical sections with headers, but it's a monolithic document with no references to external files for detailed content. The MCP tool integration and output format sections could be split into separate reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- 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.