CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

research-review

Get a deep critical review of research from Gemini via gemini-review MCP. Use when user says "review my research", "help me review", "get external review", or wants critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results.

67

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/skills-codex-gemini-review/research-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

A well-structured, actionable workflow for orchestrating a Gemini-based research review, with clear sequencing and concrete MCP tooling. Its main weakness is the absence of any progressive disclosure via separate bundle files, keeping detailed templates inlined.

Suggestions

Move the Prompt Templates block into a referenced file (e.g. references/prompts.md) and link to it from the workflow, so SKILL.md stays a lean overview and earns a higher progressive_disclosure score.

Tighten the 'Key Rules' section by removing items already implied by the workflow steps (e.g. 'Send comprehensive context in Round 1' restates Step 1), improving conciseness.

Add an explicit validation/feedback checkpoint for failed or empty review_status responses (e.g. 'if status returns an error, re-invoke review_start with trimmed context') to push workflow_clarity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient with concrete MCP tool calls and prompt fragments rather than conceptual explanation, but the 'Key Rules' section partially restates points already implied by the workflow steps and could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, named MCP tools (review_start, review_reply_start, review_status) with a real registration command and copy-paste-ready prompt templates; the Round 1 prompt template is a labeled block rather than fully literal copy-paste and the polling invocation is described in prose rather than shown as a call, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit polling loop and convergence criteria, and includes a verification checkpoint ('poll until done=true'); it stops short of a 5 because there is no explicit validation/feedback-loop for malformed responses or failures during the iterative rounds.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The content is reasonably organized with section headers, but there are no bundle files and the prompt templates plus key rules are all inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into referenced files, so there is no one-level-deep reference structure to navigate.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

88%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 strong description that clearly states both capability and trigger conditions with natural user phrasing. It is specific and complete, with only minor overlap risk from the somewhat generic 'help me review' trigger.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (research review) and several concrete actions ('deep critical review', 'critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results'), with minor gaps in coverage since it does not enumerate the multi-round dialogue or documentation outputs the skill actually performs.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Get a deep critical review of research from Gemini via gemini-review MCP') and 'when' ('Use when user says...'), with concrete trigger phrases matching the anchor's example.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases ('review my research', 'help me review', 'get external review') plus synonyms ('critical feedback') and concrete targets ('ideas, papers, experimental results'), giving comprehensive coverage of how users would naturally request this.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Gemini + MCP framing carves a clear niche distinct from generic review skills, but 'review my research' / 'help me review' are broad phrases that could overlap with general review or critique skills, leaving minor conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

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.