CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

deepxiv

Search and progressively read open-access academic papers through DeepXiv. Use when the user wants layered paper access, section-level reading, trending papers, or DeepXiv-backed literature retrieval.

Quality

72%

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 ./skills/deepxiv/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 content is highly actionable with concrete adapter and fallback commands for every operating mode and a clearly sequenced workflow. Its weaknesses are repetition (duplicated adapter-resolution shell logic and repeated policy references), the absence of any output-validation checkpoint, and reliance on shared-reference files that are not present in the bundle while keeping all operational detail inline.

Suggestions

Extract the duplicated ARIS_REPO/adapter resolution shell logic into a single referenced script or one shared snippet and have Steps 2 and 6 both invoke it, cutting ~30 lines of repetition.

Add a validation checkpoint after fetching (e.g., check the JSON output for an error/empty result before presenting the results table) to complete the feedback loop.

Verify or bundle the referenced ../shared-references/integration-contract.md and wiki-helper-resolution.md files, or inline the essential Policy D1 / Variant B rules so the skill is self-contained; consider moving the per-mode command catalog to a reference file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but contains noticeable redundancy: the ARIS_REPO resolution shell block appears twice (Step 2 and Step 6) with near-identical logic, the integration-contract reference is repeated three times, and the 'Key Rules' section restates earlier content. This sits between the 'efficient with minor trim' (4) and 'noticeably verbose' (2) anchors, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' 3 anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every mode (search, brief, head, section, trending, web, Semantic Scholar) has concrete executable commands with an adapter form and a CLI fallback, and argument parsing is specified flag by flag. Minor gaps keep it below 5: the Step 6 loop 'for each arxiv_id the user asked this skill to read in depth' is pseudocode embedded in a bash block, and no error-handling command is shown for failed fetches.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit fallback checkpoints (adapter resolution cascade with a fallback to raw CLI, warn-and-skip for the wiki helper) and a depth-escalation progression. It is not a 5 because there is no validation of fetched output (e.g., checking JSON success) before presenting results, and Step 6's ingest loop is left implicit; it is above 3 because the risky resolution paths do have explicit branch handling.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and references are clearly signaled with one-level-deep pointers (integration-contract.md §2, wiki-helper-resolution.md), but the referenced shared-references files do not exist anywhere in this bundle, so the links are unresolvable. Additionally, the full command catalog and two large shell-resolution blocks are inlined in a ~260-line SKILL.md that could partly live in reference files. This fits the 3 anchor — structure present, references not fully resolvable, content that could be separate is inline — rather than 4.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

71%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.

A solid description that explicitly states both capability and use conditions and carves out a clear niche. Its main weakness is trigger phrasing: several 'Use when' clauses use internal jargon ('layered paper access', 'DeepXiv-backed literature retrieval') instead of words users would actually say, and some supported capabilities are unmentioned.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phrases like 'layered paper access' and 'DeepXiv-backed literature retrieval' with natural user phrasings such as 'find papers', 'read a specific section of a paper', or 'browse trending papers'.

Add commonly used synonyms and identifiers to the trigger clause — e.g., 'arXiv IDs' and 'Semantic Scholar' — since the skill supports lookups by both.

Mention the remaining supported capabilities (web search, Semantic Scholar metadata by ID) so the 'what' is comprehensive.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Search and progressively read open-access academic papers through DeepXiv" names the domain and several concrete actions (search, progressive/section-level reading, trending), with minor gaps — body-supported capabilities like Semantic Scholar metadata lookup and web search are absent from the description. It lists several specific actions but coverage is not fully comprehensive, matching the 4 anchor rather than 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what ("Search and progressively read open-access academic papers through DeepXiv") and when ("Use when the user wants layered paper access, section-level reading, trending papers...") are explicitly present, but the when-clause leans on jargon-y abstractions rather than the concrete natural trigger phrases of the 5 anchor. It is clearly above the 3 anchor (where 'when' is missing or only weakly implied).

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include "trending papers", "section-level reading", and "papers", but common natural variations are missing ("arXiv", "find papers", "read a paper", file-format terms), and phrases like "layered paper access" and "DeepXiv-backed literature retrieval" are not things users naturally say. This fits the 3 anchor — some relevant keywords but missing common variations and synonyms — better than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is tightly scoped to DeepXiv with a distinct niche (progressive section-level reading vs. batch search or citation metadata), and the body's comparison table explicitly delineates it from /arxiv, /semantic-scholar, and /alphaxiv. Clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

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 — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 4 suspicious

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository

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

Path

skills/deepxiv/SKILL.md

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.