| name | coverage-report |
| description | Measure how comprehensive and current the list is — entries per section and per year, with thin and stale sections flagged. Use before planning content expansion or periodically as a health check. |
Coverage Report Skill
Computes coverage statistics for README.md in the
awesome-recursive-language-models list, so growth effort goes where the list is
weakest.
When to use
- Before a content-expansion pass, to pick target sections.
- Periodically, to check the list is keeping pace with the field.
- After a large PR, to see how coverage shifted.
How to compute
Every entry is one line matching - [Title](URL) - Description. (Year). For each
taxonomy section of README.md:
- Count the entry lines.
- Extract each trailing
(Year) and record the newest year.
- Note prose cross-references ("See the core papers above…") — they mitigate a low
count but do not replace entries.
Example one-liner for the raw counts (run from the repo root):
awk '/^## /{section=$0} /^- \[/{count[section]++} END{for (s in count) print count[s], s}' README.md | sort -rn
Interpreting results
- Thin — fewer than 5 entries: a target for the
paper-scout agent.
- Stale — newest entry older than ~12 months: the field has likely moved; sweep for
recent work.
- Uncovered pattern — a row of the Taxonomy table with no example entries anywhere:
highest-priority gap.
A section being thin is not by itself a problem — per
CONTRIBUTING.md, a smaller set of well-verified resources
beats broad coverage with weak relevance. Use the report to direct search effort, not
to justify padding.
Output
A markdown table — section | entries | newest year | status (ok / thin / stale) —
followed by a short list of recommended targets for the next expansion pass.
