Persistent research knowledge base that accumulates papers, ideas, experiments, claims, and their relationships across the entire research lifecycle. Inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern. Use when user says "知识库", "research wiki", "add paper", "wiki query", "查知识库", or wants to build/query a persistent field map.
60
72%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/research-wiki/SKILL.mdQuality
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 strong skill description with excellent trigger term coverage (including bilingual terms), a clear 'Use when' clause, and a distinctive niche. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities/actions could be more concrete — listing discrete operations like 'add papers, link claims, query relationships, export maps' rather than the somewhat abstract 'accumulates... across the entire research lifecycle'.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract 'accumulates papers, ideas, experiments, claims, and their relationships' with more concrete action verbs like 'Adds and indexes papers, logs experimental results, links claims to evidence, and queries relationship graphs'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (research knowledge base) and mentions what it accumulates (papers, ideas, experiments, claims, relationships), but the actual actions/operations are vague — 'accumulates' and 'build/query' are not as concrete as listing specific operations like 'add papers, link claims to experiments, query by topic, export citation graphs'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (persistent research knowledge base that accumulates papers, ideas, experiments, claims, and relationships) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and a general condition about building/querying a persistent field map). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including both English and Chinese variations: '知识库', 'research wiki', 'add paper', 'wiki query', '查知识库', plus conceptual triggers like 'persistent field map'. These are terms users would naturally say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with a clear niche — a persistent research wiki/knowledge base inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern. The combination of research lifecycle focus, bilingual triggers, and the specific wiki pattern reference makes it unlikely to conflict with generic note-taking or document skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
55%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill is highly actionable with executable commands, clear schemas, and well-sequenced workflows with validation checkpoints. However, it is severely over-long and monolithic — cramming integration hooks, page schemas, helper resolution logic, historical bug context, and detailed budget tables into a single file that would consume significant context window. The content would benefit enormously from splitting into separate reference files for integration hooks, schemas, and the query_pack specification.
Suggestions
Split integration hooks (Hooks 1-3), page schemas, and query_pack budget specification into separate referenced files (e.g., INTEGRATION.md, SCHEMAS.md, QUERY_PACK.md) to reduce the main SKILL.md to an overview with clear pointers.
Remove historical/debugging commentary (e.g., 'which is exactly the failure mode that left a real user's research-wiki/ empty for a week', 'Earlier versions of this skill described a prose-only init that omitted query_pack.md') — these are internal notes, not actionable instructions.
Consolidate the helper resolution explanation — it's described in the resolution section, then re-referenced in init, ingest, and integration hooks. State it once and reference it.
Remove the Acknowledgements section (duplicates the Overview mention of Karpathy) and trim the Overview paragraph to 2-3 sentences maximum.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. It over-explains integration hooks, repeats the helper resolution chain concept multiple times, includes lengthy pseudocode for hooks that could be in separate files, explains the history of bugs ('left a real user's research-wiki/ empty for a week'), and includes parenthetical asides about old versions that drifted. Much of this is internal implementation detail Claude doesn't need inline. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully executable bash commands for every subcommand (init, ingest_paper, add_edge, sync), concrete CLI flags, exact file schemas with frontmatter YAML, specific JSONL edge formats, and copy-paste ready examples. The helper resolution chain is a complete, executable bash snippet. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation and feedback loops. The ingest workflow has numbered steps, the lint subcommand provides health checks, the helper resolution chain has a clear fallback sequence with error messaging, and integration hooks specify conditional logic (if wiki exists, if script resolves) with warn-and-skip vs hard-fail semantics. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a monolithic wall of text with no bundle files to offload content to. The integration hooks (Hooks 1-3), detailed page schemas, query_pack budget tables, and re-ideation triggers are all inline when they could be split into separate reference files. The only external references are to shared-references/integration-contract.md, but no bundle files are provided to support the structure. The skill tries to be both overview and complete reference simultaneously. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
66b974e
Table of Contents
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.