CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comm-lit-review-claude-single

Communications-domain literature review with Claude-style knowledge-base-first retrieval. Use when the task is about communications, wireless, networking, satellite/NTN, Wi-Fi, cellular, transport protocols, congestion control, routing, scheduling, MAC/PHY, rate adaptation, channel estimation, beamforming, or communication-system research and the user wants papers, related work, a survey, or a landscape summary.

64

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/comm-lit-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

62%

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, domain-specific literature review skill with clear workflow sequencing and thoughtful prioritization logic. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete executable examples (no sample MCP calls, no example output table, no code for local PDF scanning) and some redundancy across sections. The monolithic structure is acceptable but would benefit from splitting venue lists and output templates into separate reference files.

Suggestions

Add a concrete example of a completed literature table row and synthesis summary to make the output format unambiguous and actionable.

Include example MCP tool invocations or search queries (e.g., example Zotero search call, example IEEE Xplore query construction) to move from instructional to executable guidance.

Extract the venue tier listings into a separate VENUES.md reference file to reduce the main skill's length and improve progressive disclosure.

Remove redundant venue-tier search instructions that appear in both 'Venue Priority' and 'Step 1' sections to improve conciseness.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is fairly detailed and well-structured, but includes some redundancy—venue priority lists are repeated in both the 'Venue Priority' section and again within 'Step 1: Search External Primary Sources'. The source selection and retrieval order sections also overlap. Some content (e.g., explaining what IEEE Xplore or ScienceDirect are) is unnecessary for Claude. However, most content is domain-specific configuration that Claude wouldn't inherently know.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides clear procedural steps and a well-defined output format (literature table with specific columns), but lacks any concrete executable code or commands. There are no actual MCP tool invocations, no example search queries, no code snippets for PDF scanning, and no example of a completed output table. The guidance is specific but remains at the instruction level rather than being copy-paste executable.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced (Steps 0a through 2, then Synthesis, then Output) with explicit ordering, graceful degradation rules (skip unavailable sources silently), and clear escalation logic (tier A → B → C, database ladder). The conditional logic for when to widen search and when to skip steps is well-defined. The venue tier system provides a clear decision framework.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single monolithic file with no bundle files or external references. At ~200+ lines with detailed venue lists, synthesis rules, and output format specifications, some content (e.g., the full venue tier listings, detailed extraction schema) could be split into reference files. The internal section organization is good, but the document is long enough that progressive disclosure into supporting files would improve it.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

89%

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 a strong skill description that excels in trigger term coverage and completeness, with a clear 'Use when' clause and extensive domain-specific keywords. The main weakness is that the 'what it does' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed (e.g., does it summarize papers, compare methodologies, generate citation lists?). Overall, it would perform well in a multi-skill selection scenario due to its distinctive domain focus and rich trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add more specific concrete actions beyond 'literature review' — e.g., 'summarizes key findings, compares methodologies, generates citation lists, identifies research gaps' to improve specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (communications) and the general action ('literature review' with 'knowledge-base-first retrieval'), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond producing 'papers, related work, a survey, or a landscape summary.' It describes what it retrieves rather than specific operations it performs on the literature.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (communications-domain literature review with knowledge-base-first retrieval) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause specifying the domain topics and user intent like wanting papers, related work, surveys, or landscape summaries).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms a user would say: 'wireless', 'networking', 'satellite', 'NTN', 'Wi-Fi', 'cellular', 'transport protocols', 'congestion control', 'routing', 'scheduling', 'MAC/PHY', 'rate adaptation', 'channel estimation', 'beamforming', 'papers', 'related work', 'survey', 'landscape summary'. These are terms researchers and engineers would naturally use.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive with a clear niche: communications-domain literature review. The combination of the specific technical domain (communications/wireless/networking) and the specific task type (literature review/survey) makes it very unlikely to conflict with other skills.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

90%

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

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

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

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
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.