writing-medical

Use when writing medical, biological, or clinical research papers - provides IMRaD structure and reporting guidelines

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is a well-organized, highly actionable medical-writing reference with ready-to-use templates and checklists. It loses points for some redundant explanatory context and for lacking an explicit validation-feedback workflow sequence.

Suggestions

Trim the '与其他学科的区别' comparison table and the per-guideline core-requirement descriptions, which restate knowledge Claude already has; keep only the study-type-to-guideline mapping.

Reframe the final checklist as an ordered writing workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. verify reporting-guideline checklist is complete before drafting results) to add a feedback loop.

Consider moving the baseline-characteristics table example and full templates into a referenced file to keep SKILL.md a leaner overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient structured reference material, but the cross-discipline comparison table and per-guideline descriptions restate domain knowledge Claude already knows and could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Copy-paste-ready ethics/statistics templates and concrete formatting rules (e.g. 'OR=2.35, 95%CI: 1.42-3.89, P=0.001') give fully executable guidance for a template skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Checklists provide structure, but the writing process is not framed as a sequenced workflow with explicit validate-fix-retry checkpoints, leaving validation implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized numbered sections with one-level-deep external resource links and no nested references; appropriate for a single-file reference skill.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

90%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The description cleanly states both what it provides and when to use it with natural trigger terms and a well-scoped niche. Its only weakness is specificity, naming just two fairly abstract deliverables rather than a list of concrete actions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names concrete deliverables ('IMRaD structure and reporting guidelines') but does not list multiple specific actions, so it falls short of the comprehensive-action anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicit 'Use when...' trigger answers when, and 'provides IMRaD structure and reporting guidelines' answers what, satisfying both halves.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'medical, biological, or clinical research papers' covers natural user variations a person would actually say, matching the good-coverage anchor.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped to medical/biological/clinical research writing, a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with general writing skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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: Norman-bury/research-writing-skill
Path: skills/writing-medical/SKILL.md
Commit: 6f79595

Reviewed: 10 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.