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.

63

Quality

73%

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

73%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 with clear sequencing and validation checkpoints. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity from a long inline scope-limits block and a Prompt Templates section that duplicates Step 2 content.

Suggestions

Move the SCOPE LIMITS boilerplate out of the main flow (e.g., into a referenced template file or a clearly delimited appendix) to reduce inline verbosity in Step 2.

Drop or cross-reference the trailing Prompt Templates section, since its examples duplicate the prompt already shown in Step 2 and the follow-up patterns in Step 3.

Replace the '[Full research context + specific questions]' placeholder with a short concrete checklist of what Round 1 context must include so the initial-review block is closer to copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient, but the inline SCOPE LIMITS block is lengthy and the Prompt Templates section at the end restates content already shown in Step 2, so it could be tightened; not verbose enough to score 2, not lean enough for 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete MCP tool names, an executable `codex mcp add` command, a full reviewer prompt, and quoted follow-up phrases, but contains placeholders like '[Full research context + specific questions]' that keep it just short of fully copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence (Gather, Initial Review, Iterative Dialogue, Convergence, Document) with explicit validation via polling `review_status` until `done=true` and a convergence feedback loop with stop criteria.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so all content is inline, but it is organized into clear, well-signaled sections (Workflow, Key Rules, Prompt Templates) with content appropriately placed; only minor organization gaps (the SCOPE LIMITS and template blocks could live elsewhere) prevent a 5.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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, well-formed description that clearly states both the capability and the trigger conditions with natural phrasing. Its only weakness is that it describes a single broad action rather than enumerating multiple concrete sub-actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('research') and a concrete action ('deep critical review') via a specific mechanism ('gemini-review MCP'), but does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the 'several specific actions' level.

3 / 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 top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes several natural phrases users would say ('review my research', 'help me review', 'get external review') plus synonyms ('critical feedback', 'papers', 'experimental results'), giving comprehensive coverage of natural terms.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Has a clear niche (external Gemini reviewer for research) with distinct triggers, making conflict with other skills minimal.

5 / 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.