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
Critical
Do not install without reviewing
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 that excels in completeness and trigger term quality, with bilingual triggers covering natural user phrases. The 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 is a strong description that would perform well in skill selection.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'organizes sections, maps methodology to results, structures argument flow' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It 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'. | 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). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms in both English and Chinese: '写大纲', 'paper outline', 'plan the paper', '论文规划', and 'paper plan before writing'. These cover common variations users would naturally say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description targets a clear niche—paper outline generation from specific inputs—with distinct bilingual trigger terms that are unlikely to conflict with general writing or other academic skills. | 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-structured, highly actionable skill that provides a clear 7-step workflow for generating paper outlines with concrete templates, validation via cross-review, and specific output format. Its main weakness is length — the content could be more concise by reducing redundancy (page budget rules appear in multiple places) and potentially splitting detailed templates into reference files. The workflow clarity is excellent with explicit validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Reduce redundancy by consolidating page budget rules and MAX_PAGES definitions into a single location rather than repeating across Steps 2, 3, and Key Rules.
Consider splitting the detailed section-by-section planning templates (Step 3) and paper type structures (Step 2) into a separate reference file to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main skill's length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~250 lines) and includes some redundancy (e.g., page budget rules repeated in multiple places, section templates that overlap with the section-by-section planning). However, most content is substantive and specific to the task rather than explaining concepts Claude already knows. Some tightening is possible but it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: specific markdown templates for Claims-Evidence Matrix, section-by-section planning with exact fields to fill, figure plan tables, citation scaffolding format, and even the exact MCP tool call for Gemini review. The output format (PAPER_PLAN.md) is fully specified with a copy-paste-ready template. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with logical dependencies (extract claims → determine structure → plan sections → plan figures → plan citations → cross-review → output). Step 6 includes an explicit validation/feedback loop via Gemini review with specific instructions to apply feedback before finalizing. The polling mechanism for the review is clearly specified. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single monolithic file with no references to supplementary documents for detailed content. The section templates, figure plan details, and citation rules could be split into separate reference files. However, the internal structure with clear headers and steps provides reasonable navigability within the single file. | 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
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.