CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

scientific-writing

Draft, revise, and audit scientific manuscripts or reports with explicit evidence provenance, reporting-guideline coverage, authorship accountability, confidentiality controls, and local consistency checks. Use for manuscript sections, references, declarations, tables, figures, or submission preparation when scientific accuracy and traceability matter.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is scientific-writing in K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

An exceptionally actionable, well-sequenced skill body: concrete commands and ID systems at every step, explicit validation gates with feedback loops, and a clean overview-plus-references structure whose bundle files all exist. The only minor cost is length — a few enumerated policy lists could be offloaded to references to tighten token usage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — almost every line states a rule, an ID scheme, or a command, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. A few long enumerated lists (the 'Never invent or complete' catalog, the intake checklist) could be trimmed or pushed to a reference, which keeps it at 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than the fully lean anchor.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste bash invocations for all eight scripts with concrete arguments, exact registry file names and ID conventions (E/C/N/M/O/R), an inline drafting syntax ('[claim:C001] [evidence:E001,E002]'), and specific named tools for each step. Matches the 'copy-paste ready commands covering common cases' anchor.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A 12-step numbered workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (check_consistency.py, audit_claims.py, validate_manifest.py, lint_manuscript.py), error-recovery guidance ('Resolve every mismatch manually', 're-run every affected audit'), and human-only approval gates before submission. Matches the top anchor's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md works as an overview: each topic area points to a one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference ('See references/evidence_workflow.md' etc.), and all 12 referenced files, 8 scripts, and 8 assets listed in the body were verified to exist in the bundle. Content split across files is appropriate and navigation is easy.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description in third person that clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete scientific-manuscript trigger scopes. Keyword coverage is good but could add common synonyms like 'paper' or 'journal article', and 'reports' slightly broadens conflict risk with generic writing skills.

Suggestions

Add natural synonyms such as 'paper', 'journal article', or 'scientific writing' to the trigger list to broaden match coverage.

Consider tightening 'or reports' to a scientific qualifier (e.g., 'or scientific reports') to reduce overlap with generic writing/reporting skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions ('Draft, revise, and audit scientific manuscripts or reports') plus feature areas (evidence provenance, reporting-guideline coverage, confidentiality controls, local consistency checks). The mid-list items are feature nouns rather than performable actions, so it sits just below the 'comprehensive concrete actions' anchor, and clearly above anchor 3's '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive'.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('Draft, revise, and audit scientific manuscripts or reports with explicit evidence provenance...') and when ('Use for manuscript sections, references, declarations, tables, figures, or submission preparation when scientific accuracy and traceability matter'). The 'Use for...' clause lists concrete trigger scopes, exactly matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — 'manuscript sections, references, declarations, tables, figures, or submission preparation' — but common variations users would say such as 'paper', 'journal article', or 'scientific writing' are missing, matching the 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive synonym/extension anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scientific-manuscript framing (reporting guidelines, authorship accountability, traceability) carves a clear niche with distinct triggers, but 'or reports' adds mild overlap risk with general business/technical writing skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the minimal-conflict anchor.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.