SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

CC 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.

zebbern/claude-code-guide Agent Skills author: zebbern 2 files body ≈ 5 149 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 d ago

Polishes academic English paragraph by paragraph, reviewing grammar, word choice, voice, coherence, and sentence structure.

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerResearchtype 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
86/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
66
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
  2. The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
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: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • warning body-long SKILL.md body ≈ 5149 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/

Process rating: all ten parameters 60/100

  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
  • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
  • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
  • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5149 tokens
  • 85Steps. 47 steps, 2 vague phrases
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
  • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

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

  • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 364: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 33 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 47 items
  • +3Output format is stated explicitly
  • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
  • +1License stated

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 66.