CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-add-fields

Add more field definitions to an existing fields.yaml. Source new fields from user input or from a web-search subagent suggesting common fields in the domain.

59

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 ./plugins/ultra-research/skills/research-add-fields/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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-structured, mostly lean workflow with concrete steps and an explicit coverage checkpoint. Its main weakness is a minor validation gap (no YAML-validity verification after in-place edits) and a few over-explained dispatch passages.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation step after appending to fields.yaml (e.g., re-read and confirm well-formed YAML / no duplicate field keys) to close the workflow_clarity validation gap.

Tighten the '⛔ Dispatch-only' paragraph to the essential constraint — drop the justifying trailing sentence about the orchestrator's job.

Make the 'briefly state why each recommendation was made' instruction concrete by specifying which coverage metric each reason should cite.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely lean with concrete steps and a tight rubric table; only minor passages (the '⛔ Dispatch-only' rationale and 'The orchestrator's job is dispatch... nothing else') could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete executable guidance (Glob pattern, specific AskUserQuestion options, a thinness rubric table with numeric thresholds, named routing options), with only minor abstract patches like 'briefly state why each recommendation was made'.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 4-step sequence with the thinness rubric acting as an explicit checkpoint before routing; minor gap is the absence of a YAML-validity check after appending fields.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A compact, well-organized self-contained skill (Trigger, Pipeline Context, Workflow, Output) with no bundle files and no nested references, satisfying the simple-skill exception for progressive disclosure.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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 clearly states what the skill does and names a concrete domain, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness. Trigger terms are relevant but somewhat jargon-heavy rather than user-natural.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when the user wants to enrich the field schema before deep research').

Swap pipeline jargon ('web-search subagent suggesting common fields in the domain') for phrasing a user would actually say, and include synonyms/file extensions.

Tighten distinctiveness by contrasting briefly with the sibling research-add-items skill to reduce overlap ambiguity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('existing fields.yaml') and several concrete actions ('Add more field definitions', 'Source new fields from user input or from a web-search subagent suggesting common fields'), with only minor gaps in coverage.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (add field definitions, source them from user input or a web-search subagent), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords ('field definitions', 'fields.yaml', 'web-search subagent', 'common fields in the domain') but leans on pipeline jargon rather than the natural phrases a user would say, and misses common synonyms.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (extending fields.yaml within a research pipeline) with distinct triggers; minor overlap risk only with sibling skills like research-add-items.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
seanGSISG/claude-depot
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.