CD research-review
Get a deep critical review of research from a selected reviewer (Codex by default, Gemini, Grok, Claude Code, or manual). Use when user says "review my research", "help me review", "get external review", or wants critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results.
Get a deep critical review of research from a selected reviewer (Codex by default, Gemini, Grok, Claude Code, or manual).
As a process D 49/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-composition.md
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
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.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bash(*)allowed-tools: Bash(*) Read Grep Glob Write Edit mcp__codex__codex mcp__codex__codex-reply mcp__manual_review__review mcp__manual_review__review_reply mcp__antigravity__antigravity mcp__antigravity__a
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/external-cadence.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/output-composition.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 17): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 49/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/external-cadence.md, ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-composition.md
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 31 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3243 tokens
- low The response is described with custom markup (4 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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 3 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 282: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 19 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.