SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC research-refine

Turn a vague research direction into a problem-anchored, elegant, frontier-aware, implementation-oriented method plan via iterative GPT-6-Astra review. Use when the user says "refine my approach", "帮我细化方案", "decompose this problem", "打磨idea", "refine research plan", "细化研究方案", or wants a concrete research method that stays simple, focused, and top-venue ready instead of a vague or overbuilt idea.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep Agent Skills author: wanshuiyin MIT 1 file body ≈ 8 419 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 6 h ago

Turn a vague research direction into a problem-anchored, elegant, frontier-aware, implementation-oriented method plan via iterative GPT-6-Astra review.

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-versioning.md, ../shared-references/output-manifest.md

ProcedureData and analyticsInfrastructureAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
C
85/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
95
Quality 40%
70
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-versioning.md, ../shared-references/output-manifest.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Execution cost w 6
40
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: research-refine (wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep)

What is at stake

Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.

Broad scope medium severity

Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.

If you install

The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.

For the author

Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.

How to improve

  1. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
  2. The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
For the model run — optional
  • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
  • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

Guard findings · 1

✓ No critical or high findings

Medium and low: 1
  • medium Broad scope meta-broad-allowed-tools SKILL.md:1
    Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(*)
    allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Write Edit Grep Glob WebSearch WebFetch mcp__codex__codex mcp__codex__codex-reply mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__antigravity-reply mcp__grok__grok mcp__gro

Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 8419 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/output-versioning.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/output-manifest.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/output-language.md

Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-versioning.md, ../shared-references/output-manifest.md
  • 0Tools and files. 4 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-versioning.md, ../shared-references/output-manifest.md
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8419 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
  • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
  • 85Steps. 119 steps, 2 vague phrases
  • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
  • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
  • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
  • high The skill tells the model to perform an irreversible action with no human approval
  • low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable

Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

Quality signals

  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +5Description quotes 6 example trigger phrases
  • +3Description length 398: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 29 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 119 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (15 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.