‘Study Skills’ in any guise are integral to Higher Education worldwide, existing to help student ‘success’. Some argue ‘generic’ or ‘bolt-on’ ‘Study Skills’ do not help with ‘success’, others that ‘embedded’ ‘Study Skills’ do, but no-one advocates actually evaluating Study Skills in a context of ‘success’ defined as helping with student educational gain and attainment in their specific subjects. Instead, many evaluate them in arguably inappropriate contexts of a silo or ‘bubble’ of Study Skills such as ‘attendance’ or ‘perceived improvements’ in ‘Study Skills’. Indeed, when ‘Study Skills’ are found effective for success, they are often ‘embedded’ or delivered in the subject context, but it is not suggested they actually be evaluated in that context. We outline what we consider to be inappropriate contexts for evaluation, and appropriate ones, and outline theory from thinkers such as Mikhail Bakhtin regarding the key role of context and discuss key issues of definitions, silos, and decontextualised metrics. We suggest Study Skills be evaluated by asking: ‘What’s the context? To make them effective in helping aim for student ‘success’. We suggest ways to do this, such as through student module evaluations, module reports, or objective student analysis by a third party.