research-review
Get a deep critical review of research from Claude via claude-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.
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 solid description that clearly communicates when to use the skill with explicit trigger phrases and a well-defined 'when' clause. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed (e.g., identifying methodological issues, evaluating experimental design, checking logical consistency). Overall it performs well for skill selection purposes.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 more specific concrete actions beyond 'deep critical review', such as 'identifies methodological flaws, evaluates experimental design, checks logical consistency of arguments'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (research review) and mentions the tool (claude-review MCP), but the concrete actions are limited to 'deep critical review' without listing specific capabilities like identifying methodological flaws, checking statistical validity, evaluating novelty, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Get a deep critical review of research from Claude via claude-review MCP') and when ('Use when user says "review my research", "help me review", "get external review", or wants critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms: 'review my research', 'help me review', 'get external review', 'critical feedback', 'research ideas', 'papers', 'experimental results' — these cover a good range of phrases users would naturally say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche — critical review of research via a specific MCP tool. The trigger terms are specific to research review workflows and unlikely to conflict with general writing or coding 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-crafted skill with strong actionability and workflow clarity. The multi-step review process is clearly sequenced with concrete MCP tool calls, polling patterns, and convergence criteria. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity from duplicated guidance between the workflow steps, key rules, and prompt templates, plus the content being somewhat long for a single file without leveraging progressive disclosure to separate reference material.
Suggestions
Move the Prompt Templates section to a separate TEMPLATES.md file and reference it from the main skill to reduce token cost and improve progressive disclosure.
Remove duplicated advice from 'Key Rules' that is already covered in the workflow steps (e.g., 'Send comprehensive context in Round 1' is already Step 2's explicit instruction).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary verbosity. The prompt templates section at the end partially duplicates guidance already given in the workflow steps. The 'Key Rules' section repeats advice already implicit in the workflow (e.g., 'send comprehensive context in Round 1'). However, it doesn't over-explain basic concepts. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete MCP tool calls with specific parameters, exact bash commands for installation, specific polling patterns (jobId/threadId), and detailed prompt templates that are copy-paste ready. The workflow is fully executable with clear tool invocations. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation/convergence criteria (Step 4), feedback loops (iterative dialogue in Step 3 with specific patterns for pushing back), and clear checkpoints (polling until done=true, saving threadId). The async job pattern with status polling is well-specified. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is reasonably well-structured with clear sections, but it's somewhat long for a single file. The prompt templates section could be split into a separate reference file. The prerequisites reference external files but the main content is monolithic at ~100 lines of substantive instruction. | 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.