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.

72

Quality

88%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is a comprehensive, highly actionable academic-polishing knowledge base with a clear workflow and output format. Its main weakness is conciseness and the absence of progressive disclosure — a 350-line single file that re-explains some basics and keeps large reference tables inline.

Suggestions

Trim or move foundational concepts Claude already knows (basic grammar-error checklist, active/passive voice basics) to tighten conciseness and respect the token budget.

Split the large substitution and reference tables (sections 2–6) into a dedicated reference file under references/ and link to it one level deep, improving progressive disclosure.

Condense redundant table prose and merge overlapping guidance so the inline SKILL.md stays a lean overview rather than the full knowledge base.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is largely curated domain reference (colloquial-to-academic substitutions, tense-by-section, signaling words), but at ~350 lines it also explains basics Claude already knows (the grammar-error checklist, active/passive voice basics) and could be tightened, matching the 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' anchor.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides a concrete copy-paste output template, per-dimension rating rubric, specific fix strategies in tables, and a section-by-section polishing guide — fully actionable instruction-only guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Section 10 sequences a clear 6-step workflow (confirm details → identify section → five-dimension review → annotate → output → summarize) with checkpoint-style core principles such as 'when uncertain, present it as a suggestion rather than making the change.'

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the skill is a single well-sectioned monolithic file; while headers organize it well, large reference tables that could live in separate files remain inline, matching the 'content that should be separate is inline' anchor.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, and complete, clearly stating both capabilities and explicit activation conditions in third-person voice. It is a strong, low-conflict description with no significant gaps.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Polishes academic English paragraph by paragraph, reviewing grammar, word choice, voice, coherence, and sentence structure' and 'Outputs revision suggestions alongside polished text' — matching the anchor for listing multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers what (five-dimension paragraph polishing with suggestion output) and when via an explicit 'Triggered by...' clause, satisfying the anchor for clearly answering both what AND when with explicit triggers.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases ('polish this paragraph,' 'check the grammar,' 'rewrite in academic English') plus keywords (manuscript editing, SCI polishing, journal submission editing), giving good coverage of terms a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The academic/scholarly niche with distinct triggers like 'SCI polishing' and 'journal submission editing' makes it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.

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.