CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

scholarly-writing-refiner

Polishes academic English paragraph by paragraph, reviewing grammar, word choice, voice, coherence, and sentence structure. Outputs revision suggestions alongside polished text. Triggered by phrases like 'polish this paragraph,' 'check the grammar,' 'rewrite in academic English,' or keywords like manuscript editing, SCI polishing, and journal submission editing.

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/scholarly-writing-refiner/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 thorough, well-organized academic-polishing knowledge base with a concrete output template and workflow, but it is a monolithic 350-line file that re-explains basic grammar Claude already knows. Splitting reference tables into bundle files and trimming elementary grammar rules would improve it.

Suggestions

Move the large reference tables (colloquial-to-academic substitutions, redundancy table, signaling words) into files under references/ and link to them one level deep, keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.

Trim or remove sections 2.1–2.2 explanations of basic grammar/punctuation concepts Claude already knows; keep only academic-specific nuances.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint to the section 10 workflow, e.g., re-confirming the author's meaning is preserved and that 'please keep' content was not altered.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient reference tables, but sections 2.1–2.2 re-explain basic grammar concepts Claude already knows (e.g., 'Subject is results (plural)', 'A comma cannot join two independent clauses'), which is unnecessary padding.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a copy-paste output template (section 8), a concrete 6-step workflow (section 10), and specific substitution/pattern tables, but some guidance stays abstract ('apply the corresponding section guidelines').

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Section 10 lays out a clearly sequenced 6-step workflow; polishing is non-destructive so the validation cap does not apply, though checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned into numbered parts, but it is a single ~350-line monolithic file with no external references, and large reference tables that would fit better in separate files are inlined.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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, third-person description that clearly states capabilities and explicit trigger phrases with good keyword coverage. Its only weakness is one generic trigger ('check the grammar') that creates minor overlap with general grammar skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the academic-English domain and lists multiple concrete review actions (grammar, word choice, voice, coherence, sentence structure) plus the output artifacts (revision suggestions and polished text), giving comprehensive coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (polishes paragraph by paragraph across five dimensions and outputs suggestions plus polished text) and 'when' (concrete 'Triggered by phrases like...' guidance).

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases ('polish this paragraph,' 'check the grammar,' 'rewrite in academic English') alongside keyword synonyms (manuscript editing, SCI polishing, journal submission editing), covering how users actually request this.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The academic-polishing niche and most triggers are distinct, but 'check the grammar' is generic and could overlap with general grammar-checking skills, leaving minor conflict risk.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

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
zebbern/claude-code-guide
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.