comm-lit-review
Communications-domain literature review and related-work search with database-aware source control. 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, prior art, a survey, related work, or a landscape summary. Prioritize IEEE Xplore and ScienceDirect, prefer formal publications over preprints, and separate foundational work from recent progress.
88
85%
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 a strong, well-crafted description that clearly defines a narrow niche (communications-domain literature review), provides extensive trigger terms spanning the domain's subfields, and includes an explicit 'Use when...' clause with both domain and intent triggers. The additional behavioral guidance about database prioritization and separating foundational from recent work adds useful specificity without being verbose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions: literature review, related-work search, database-aware source control, prioritizing specific databases (IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect), separating foundational work from recent progress, preferring formal publications over preprints. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (literature review and related-work search with database-aware source control) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause listing specific domains and user intents like wanting papers, prior art, surveys, or landscape summaries). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms a user would say: 'papers', 'prior art', 'survey', 'related work', 'landscape summary', plus extensive domain-specific keywords like 'wireless', 'networking', 'satellite/NTN', 'Wi-Fi', 'cellular', 'beamforming', 'congestion control', 'MAC/PHY', etc. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive due to the narrow communications-domain focus combined with specific database preferences (IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect) and the literature review task type. Unlikely to conflict with general research skills or non-communications skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
70%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 literature review skill with excellent progressive disclosure and workflow clarity. Its main weaknesses are moderate redundancy across sections (database priority repeated three times) and a lack of inline concrete examples—such as a sample literature table row or example search query—that would make it more immediately actionable without needing to consult the referenced files.
Suggestions
Add a brief inline example of a completed paper entry (step 4) or a mini literature table row so the skill is actionable without requiring the external output-template.md.
Consolidate the repeated database priority ordering—state it definitively once in step 3's database ladder and reference it elsewhere rather than restating it in the overview, step 2, and the rules section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some redundancy—e.g., the database priority order is stated in the overview, restated in step 2, and again in step 3 with the 'database ladder.' The rules section also repeats several points already covered in the workflow. Some tightening would reduce token cost without losing clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structured guidance with clear steps and decision criteria, but it lacks concrete executable examples—no sample search queries, no example of a filled-out paper entry, no snippet of what the literature table looks like inline. It relies heavily on external reference files (output-template.md, venue-tiering.md) for the concrete details, making the skill itself more descriptive than directly actionable. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit decision points (when to widen database tiers, when to switch to hard constraint mode, when preprints are acceptable). The layered search strategy with escalation conditions serves as a validation/checkpoint mechanism appropriate for a non-destructive research task. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill cleanly references four external files (source-policy.md, domain-taxonomy.md, venue-tiering.md, output-template.md) at one level deep, all clearly signaled in the overview. The main body stays at the right level of abstraction while delegating detailed lists and templates to reference files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.
- Commit
dc00dfb
- 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.