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.
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 62/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/taste-calibration.md, ../../shared-references/output-versioning.md
The same skill appears in 1 more place: Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 7815 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../shared-references/taste-calibration.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../shared-references/output-versioning.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../shared-references/output-manifest.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../shared-references/output-language.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 62/100
- 0Tools and files. 5 referenced file(s) missing: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/taste-calibration.md, ../../shared-references/output-versioning.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7815 tokens
- 85Steps. 115 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
- 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: 115 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (13 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 70.