SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC research-review

Get a deep critical review of research from a fresh Codex agent or a selected Gemini, Grok, or Claude Code reviewer. Use when user says "review my research", "help me review", "get external review", or wants critical feedback on research ideas, papers, or experimental results.

wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep Agent Skills author: wanshuiyin MIT 1 file body ≈ 2 203 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 h ago

Get a deep critical review of research from a fresh Codex agent or a selected Gemini, Grok, or Claude Code reviewer.

As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-composition.md

AnalyzerAI and agentsSoftware developmenttype 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
B
90/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
75
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
51/100
Has gaps
References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-composition.md
Tools and files w 18
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. 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 · 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 missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md
  • warning missing-ref reference to a missing file: ../shared-references/output-composition.md
  • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 15): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100

Will not run. References files that are not bundled: ../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md, ../shared-references/output-composition.md
  • 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: ../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
  • 100Steps. 30 steps
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2203 tokens

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 277: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 18 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 30 items
  • +4Has examples (2 code blocks)

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 75.