Skip to content
Back to skills

699 Gaps Analysis 9fc3e939

ASecurity

Analysis of the skill-research-process compared to repository best practices.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added October 11, 2026
researchgogitdocumentation

Works with

  • cli
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 11, 2026

npx -y skills add tools-only/X-Skills --skill 699-gaps-analysis_9fc3e939 --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of 699 Gaps Analysis 9fc3e939?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for 699 Gaps Analysis 9fc3e939
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/tools-only-699-gaps-analysis-9fc3e939/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/tools-only-699-gaps-analysis-9fc3e939)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

SKILL.md
# Gaps and Weaknesses Analysis

Analysis of the skill-research-process compared to repository best practices.

## Identified Gaps

### 1. Missing Verification Protocol

**Issue**: CLAUDE.md requires mandatory verification before documenting any behavior/capability. The research process lacks verification checkpoints.

**CLAUDE.md Requirement** (lines ~195-240):

> Before documenting ANY behavior, capability, or characteristic... The model MUST execute ALL of these steps: Read the Actual Source, Verify the Behavior, Cite Observations, Never Fabricate, Distinguish Assumption from Fact.

**Fix Required**: Add verification checkpoints between research stages.

### 2. Weak Citation Requirements

**Issue**: Citations mentioned but not enforced with the rigor CLAUDE.md demands.

**CLAUDE.md Requirement**:

> Minimum 3 independent authoritative sources for major claims. Include line numbers when referencing code files. Execute test if behavior can be observed directly.

**Fix Required**: Add explicit citation format requirements and verification.

### 3. No Freshness Tracking

**Issue**: research-curator skill includes freshness tracking (next review dates). skill-research-process doesn't.

**Fix Required**: Add freshness metadata to generated skills.

### 4. Missing Anti-Hallucination Verification

**Issue**: research-and-compare skill has explicit anti-hallucination checkpoints. This skill lacks them.

**Example from research-and-compare**:

```markdown
**Anti-hallucination verification**:
- [ ] I am NOT relying on training data for either methodology
- [ ] Every claim I will make can be cited to a source I read THIS SESSION
- [ ] If I don't have source material for a claim, I will NOT make that claim
```

**Fix Required**: Add anti-hallucination checkpoint before integration stage.

### 5. No Delegation Template Alignment

**Issue**: CLAUDE.md says "When invoking the Task tool, follow the Delegation Template in the agent-orchestration skill." Current prompts don't follow this.

**Fix Required**: Update agent prompts to follow delegation template format.

### 6. Missing Quality Gates

**Issue**: No checkpoints between stages to verify output quality.

**Fix Required**: Add quality verification steps:

- After categorization: verify categories are distinct
- After research: verify citations exist and links work
- Before integration: verify all categories completed

### 7. No Error Recovery

**Issue**: What happens when:

- MCP tools unavailable?
- Research agent fails or times out?
- Source documentation is incomplete?

**Fix Required**: Add error handling and fallback strategies.

### 8. Missing Integration with research-curator

**Issue**: skill-research-process creates skills from research, but doesn't connect to the existing `./research/` directory or research-curator workflow.

**Opportunity**: Could reuse research already gathered by research-curator.

### 9. No Skill Validation Step

**Issue**: References `package_skill.py` but doesn't specify validation criteria or how to interpret results.

**Fix Required**: Add explicit validation steps and success criteria.

## Weaknesses

### 1. Over-reliance on MCP Tools

The skill assumes MCP tools are available. Needs explicit fallback to:

- WebFetch + WebSearch for discovery
- GitHub CLI (`gh`) for repository analysis
- Local clone + Read for code analysis

### 2. Vague Category Guidance

"Aim for 5-10 categories" is too vague. Needs criteria for:

- When to split vs combine categories
- Maximum category size
- Handling overlapping topics

### 3. No Progress Tracking

Long-running research with multiple parallel agents needs:

- Status checking mechanism
- Partial result handling
- Resume capability if interrupted

### 4. Missing Output Validation

No verification that:

- All TODO items were researched
- All index.md files have working links
- Reference files meet quality standards

## Recommended Improvements Priority

| Priority | Improvement                       | Rationale                         |
| -------- | --------------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
| P0       | Anti-hallucination checkpoints    | Prevents garbage output           |
| P0       | Citation enforcement              | Required by CLAUDE.md             |
| P1       | Quality gates between stages      | Catches errors early              |
| P1       | Error recovery/fallbacks          | Handles real-world failures       |
| P2       | Freshness tracking                | Consistency with research-curator |
| P2       | Delegation template alignment     | Follows repo conventions          |
| P3       | Integration with research-curator | Avoids duplicate work             |

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.