research/notebooklm/skills/notebooklm/SKILL.md
Browser automation skill for controlling Google's NotebookLM. Handles reading and querying notebooks, adding sources (URLs, text, files, YouTube links, synthesized content), generating Studio outputs (Audio Overview, infographics, slide decks, study guides, briefing docs, mind maps, timelines, FAQs), and creating new notebooks. Triggers on any phrase involving NotebookLM — 'open NotebookLM', 'check my [name] notebook', 'pull info from NotebookLM', 'ask my notebook about X', 'add [source] to NotebookLM', 'create an infographic in NotebookLM', 'use NotebookLM Studio', 'generate a slide deck from my notebook', or any variation where the goal involves NotebookLM. Requires browser automation environment — fails gracefully when unavailable.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills notebooklmInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Requires: A browser automation environment (Claude Code CLI with computer-use, Claude Chrome Extension, or equivalent). Skill will gracefully fail in non-automation contexts with a clear "not supported" message.
Critical: This skill is the only browser-automation skill in the v2 collection. It does NOT follow the research-pack Agent Integrity Rules convention. Different constraints apply (UI dynamics, async generation, login walls).
Before any other action, verify browser automation is available:
Up to 4 forcing questions, one at a time, dependency-ordered. Most invocations stop at Q3.
What do you want me to do? Pick one:
- Read / extract — ask a question of an existing notebook
- Add a source — push content (URL, text, file, Google Doc, or synthesized content) into a notebook
- Generate a Studio output — Audio Overview, Study Guide, Briefing Doc, Timeline, FAQ, Infographic, Slides, or Mind Map
- Create a new notebook — initialize with title + initial sources
Why I'm asking: Each action takes a different path through the UI and requires different parameters. Naming the action upfront prevents wasted screenshots and lets me ask only the follow-up questions that apply.
Forcing choice. If the user says "open NotebookLM" without specifying an action, refuse to start and re-ask Q1.
Which notebook? (asked for actions 1, 2, 3 — not for "create new")
Why I'm asking: If you give me a name, I'll search the homepage; if you give me a URL, I'll navigate directly. Names that are ambiguous will get a disambiguation prompt with screenshots.
For action 4 (create new): replace with "What's the title for the new notebook?"
Action 1 (read/extract):
"What's the question to ask the notebook? Use natural phrasing — the notebook's chat handles it best."
Action 2 (add source):
"What source type? Pick one:
- URL / website / YouTube link
- Copied text (paste here or point at content)
- File upload (provide absolute path)
- Google Doc (link)
- Synthesized content (I'll pre-process and add as 'Copied text')
Why I'm asking: Each source type goes through a different sub-flow in the Add Source dialog. Picking upfront saves a step."
Action 3 (Studio output):
"Which Studio output? Audio Overview / Study Guide / Briefing Doc / Timeline / FAQ / Table of Contents / Infographic / Slides / Mind Map. And: any custom-prompt direction? Default prompts produce mediocre output — I always open the customization menu and write a detailed prompt. Tell me the angle or audience.
Why I'm asking: The output type sets the UI button to find. The custom prompt is mandatory for quality."
Action 4 (create new):
"Initial sources? Provide URLs, file paths, or 'I'll add later'."
Tell me the angle, audience, and length for the Studio output. Examples:
- Audio Overview: "Two-host conversation for a non-technical executive, 8–10 min, focus on business implications not technical depth"
- Infographic: "Decision-tree style, action-oriented, 6 panels max, monochrome navy"
- Study Guide: "Undergrad-level, definitions + 3 practice questions per concept"
Why I'm asking: This becomes the custom prompt. Default Studio prompts produce mediocre output — specific direction produces sharp output.
Asked only for Studio output generation (Q1=3). Skip otherwise.
Stop condition: After Q4 (or earlier with dependency skips), commit and start the action sequence.
See references/studio_output_custom_prompts.md for the canon.
For actions 1-3 (require existing notebook):
For action 4 (create new):
Sub-flows per source type:
| Type | UI flow | |---|---| | URL / Website / YouTube | Add Source → Link → paste URL | | Copied Text | Add Source → Copied text → paste content | | File Upload | Use file-upload tool with absolute path + input ref (never click native file picker) | | Google Doc | Add Source → Google Docs → Drive picker | | Synthesized content | Pre-process content elsewhere, then add as Copied text |
After every add: wait for ingestion spinner, screenshot to confirm success.
Synthesized content pattern (powerful): instead of asking NotebookLM to ingest a raw URL with potentially noisy content, pre-process the content (extract main article, strip nav/ads/comments), then add as "Copied text". Produces dramatically better summarization.
All 9 output types supported: Audio Overview, Study Guide, Briefing Doc, Timeline, FAQ, Table of Contents, Infographic, Slides, Mind Map.
Mandatory workflow:
Audio Overview:
"Two-host conversation between a researcher and an experienced practitioner. Audience: non-technical executive making a budget decision. Length: 8-10 minutes. Focus on business implications, not technical depth. Include one concrete example per major point. Acknowledge counter-arguments briefly."
Infographic:
"Decision-tree style. Action-oriented (each panel ends with a decision or action). 6 panels max. Monochrome navy + amber highlight. Each panel has: title (4-6 words), 1-2 sentence body, decision/action line. No filler panels."
Study Guide:
"Undergraduate-level (define every technical term). Structure: 6 concepts × 4 elements each (definition / why it matters / one worked example / 3 practice questions). Practice questions Bloom-higher-order (apply/analyze), not recall."
Slides (slide deck):
"12 slides max. 1-2 sentences per slide body. Presenter notes per slide with: one concrete example + one likely audience objection + how to address it. No bullet points in slide bodies — prose only. End with one-slide call-to-action."
See references/studio_output_custom_prompts.md for more.
Async output rule: For Studio generations (especially Audio Overview — 5-10 min), DO NOT wait for completion. The user's session will time out.
Workflow: Click Generate → confirm generation has started via screenshot → tell the user "Generation in progress — NotebookLM will notify you when ready" → end the task.
This is the fire-and-notify pattern. Different from add-source and auto-summary (which are fast enough to wait).
Use scripts/async_action_classifier.py to determine wait-or-notify per action:
| Action | Wait? | |---|---| | Add Source (URL/text/file) | Yes — wait for ingestion spinner (~5-30s) | | Read/Extract (chat) | Yes — wait 3-5s for response | | Studio: Audio Overview | No — fire and notify (5-10 min) | | Studio: Infographic / Slides / Mind Map | No — fire and notify (2-5 min) | | Studio: Study Guide / Briefing Doc / FAQ | Yes — wait ~30-60s | | Create New Notebook | Yes — wait for auto-summary (<30s) |
See references/async_action_discipline.md for the canon.
NotebookLM is a dynamic SPA where UI varies by:
Every UI action must be preceded by a screenshot. Reasons:
Use screenshot() (or equivalent in your browser-automation tool) before every meaningful UI interaction.
See references/browser_automation_canon.md for the discipline.
Use semantic element finders before pixel coordinates wherever possible:
find(text="Audio Overview") → returns element regardless of positionclick(x=420, y=380) → breaks when UI rearrangesSemantic finders survive minor UI changes. Pixel coordinates do not.
Only fall back to coordinates when:
For Read/Extract actions producing useful information:
${WORKSPACE}/notebooklm/<notebook-slug>-<action>-<date>.md)For Studio outputs:
After completing any action:
| Failure | Behavior | |---|---| | Browser automation unavailable | Fail fast with "this skill requires browser automation" message (Step 0 halt) | | Login wall detected | Stop. Tell user to log in. Don't attempt auto-login. | | Multiple notebooks match name | Screenshot homepage, list options, ask user to specify | | Source ingestion spinner stuck > 60s | Note timeout, ask user if they want to retry | | Studio button not found in panel | Scroll down or look for "Discover more"; if still missing, note feature may not be enabled for this account | | Chat response doesn't appear in 10s | Screenshot, check for error state, retry once | | Page layout changed unexpectedly | Screenshot, describe what's visible, ask user for guidance |
| Script | Role |
|---|---|
| scripts/action_router.py | Q1-Q4 answers → action plan + UI flow + required parameters |
| scripts/custom_prompt_template_generator.py | Studio output type + audience + length → starter custom prompt |
| scripts/async_action_classifier.py | Action name → wait-or-notify pattern (fire-and-notify for slow generations) |
references/browser_automation_canon.md — screenshot-first + find-before-click + tool-agnostic patterns (7+ sources)references/studio_output_custom_prompts.md — why defaults are mediocre + per-output-type templates (7+ sources)references/async_action_discipline.md — fire-and-notify pattern for slow UI ops (7+ sources)Version: 1.0.0
Source spec: megaprompts/03-notebooklm-megaprompt.md
Build pattern: Path B (direct conversion). Browser-automation shape — distinct from research-pack convention.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.