alphaxiv
Quick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback. Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID for quick understanding - not for broad literature search.
89
88%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
100%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 is an excellent skill description that hits all the key criteria. It provides specific capabilities, natural trigger terms users would actually say, explicit 'Use when' guidance, and a clear negative boundary to prevent conflicts with related skills. The description is concise yet comprehensive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists concrete actions: 'single-paper lookup', 'LLM-optimized summaries', 'tiered source fallback'. Also specifies what it's NOT for ('not for broad literature search'), which adds clarity. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Quick single-paper lookup via AlphaXiv LLM-optimized summaries with tiered source fallback') and when ('Use when user says "explain this paper", "summarize paper", pastes an arXiv/AlphaXiv URL, or provides a bare arXiv ID'). Explicit 'Use when' clause is present. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes highly natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'explain this paper', 'summarize paper', 'arXiv URL', 'AlphaXiv URL', 'arXiv ID'. These cover common user phrasings well. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with specific niche (arXiv/AlphaXiv paper summaries) and explicit negative boundary ('not for broad literature search') that helps distinguish it from broader research or literature search skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability — the tiered fallback pattern is clearly defined with concrete URLs, error handling, and stop conditions. The main weakness is moderate verbosity: the integration sections, role positioning table, and research wiki instructions could be trimmed or moved to separate reference files to improve token efficiency. Overall it's a strong, functional skill that could benefit from tightening.
Suggestions
Move the 'Integration with Other Skills' and 'Update Research Wiki' sections to a separate reference file to reduce the main skill's token footprint.
Trim the Role & Positioning table — Claude doesn't need a comparison matrix of sibling skills; a single sentence stating when NOT to use this skill suffices.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes useful content but has some verbosity: the role/positioning comparison table, the integration section with other skills, and the research wiki section add significant length. The explanation of what each tier returns ('structured, LLM-optimized report designed for machine consumption') is somewhat redundant. However, most content is functional rather than explanatory. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete URLs with template patterns, specific input format examples, explicit HTTP status codes to handle (404, 429), exact commands for wiki ingestion, a clear output template, and specific file prioritization rules for LaTeX source inspection. Guidance is copy-paste ready and leaves little ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The tiered fallback workflow is clearly sequenced (Steps 1-5) with explicit escalation conditions between tiers. Each step has clear stop conditions ('If the overview answers the user's question, stop here'). Error handling is specified (HTTP 429 retry logic, 404 fallback). The selective reading constraint at Tier 3 acts as a validation checkpoint against token waste. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files like `shared-references/integration-contract.md` and other skills, which is good. However, the integration sections (with /research-lit, research wiki) and the role comparison table are inlined rather than split out, making the file longer than necessary. Without bundle files, the reference to `integration-contract.md` cannot be verified, but the single-level reference pattern is appropriate. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
2028ac4
- 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.