paper-plan
Generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results. Use when user says "写大纲", "paper outline", "plan the paper", "论文规划", or wants to create a paper plan before writing.
86
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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 well-crafted description with strong trigger terms in both English and Chinese, a clear 'Use when' clause, and a distinct niche. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions or outputs (e.g., section structure, methodology planning, argument flow). Overall, it performs well for skill selection purposes.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Generates section headings, argument flow, methodology structure, and figure placement plan from review conclusions and experiment results.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (paper outline generation) and mentions inputs (review conclusions and experiment results), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond 'generate a structured paper outline'. It could be more specific about what the outline contains or what steps are involved. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (generate a structured paper outline from review conclusions and experiment results) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and a general condition about creating a paper plan before writing). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms in both English and Chinese: '写大纲', 'paper outline', 'plan the paper', '论文规划', and 'paper plan'. These are terms users would naturally say when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The skill has a clear niche — paper outline generation specifically from review conclusions and experiment results — with distinct bilingual trigger terms. It is unlikely to conflict with general writing skills or other academic skills like literature review or paper editing. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 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-crafted, highly actionable skill that provides a comprehensive workflow for generating paper outlines. Its greatest strengths are the concrete templates (Claims-Evidence Matrix, figure plan tables, section specifications) and the clear 7-step workflow with a built-in review feedback loop. The main weakness is its length—some of the detailed paper-type templates and section planning examples could be moved to reference files to improve conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Consider moving the detailed paper-type templates (empirical, theory, method) into a separate reference file like PAPER_TYPES.md, keeping only a brief summary in the main skill.
The section-by-section planning template in Step 3 is very detailed; consider extracting it to a SECTION_TEMPLATE.md reference file and keeping only a condensed example in the main skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~300 lines) and includes some content that could be tightened—e.g., the detailed paper type templates with page counts, the extensive section-by-section planning templates, and the acknowledgements section. However, most content is genuinely instructive and not explaining things Claude already knows, so it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: specific markdown templates for the Claims-Evidence Matrix, exact MCP tool calls for Gemini review, detailed figure plan tables, specific file paths to check, and a complete output format. The instructions are copy-paste ready and leave little ambiguity about what to produce. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit dependencies (extract claims → determine structure → plan sections → plan figures → scaffold citations → cross-review → output). Step 6 includes a validation/feedback loop via the Gemini reviewer with explicit instructions to apply feedback before finalizing. The workflow handles error cases (missing input files, large file write failures) with clear fallback instructions. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external shared protocols (output-versioning.md, output-manifest.md, output-language.md) which is good progressive disclosure. However, the main file itself is quite long with detailed inline templates for all three paper types and extensive section planning templates that could potentially be split into separate reference files. The content is well-structured with clear headers but borders on monolithic. | 2 / 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
700fbe2
- 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.