CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

family-health-analyzer

分析家族病史、评估遗传风险、识别家庭健康模式、提供个性化预防建议

55

Quality

63%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/family-health-analyzer/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is family-health-analyzer in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The content is well-structured and reasonably concise with a clear 8-step workflow and an explicit validation step, but its actionability is held back by named-but-unimplemented algorithms and a non-runnable formula block. Providing executable code for the genetic-pattern and risk-score steps would most improve the score.

Suggestions

Replace the named '识别算法' bullets with a concrete, executable snippet (e.g. Python that counts affected first-degree relatives and computes the weighted score).

Make step 3's validation items concrete — specify the actual checks or a validation script/command rather than listing '关系完整性, 年龄合理性, 数据一致性' as concepts.

Remove the redundant '集成现有模块' section since the same data sources are already enumerated in 步骤2.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean — short lists, code blocks, and bullet points that assume Claude's competence; minor redundancy (the '集成现有模块' section repeats step 2's data sources) keeps it just below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

It gives concrete data file paths, a weighted risk formula, and a JSON example, but the core '识别算法' (家族聚集性分析, 遗传模式识别) are named concepts rather than executable code, and the risk block is a formula rather than runnable Python — matching the 'pseudocode / incomplete' anchor 3.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eight steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation step (步骤3 数据验证与清洗) and a safety-boundary section; the validation items (关系完整性, 年龄合理性, 数据一致性) are listed but lack concrete check commands, a minor gap below anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned SKILL.md with no bundle files and clear headers (概述, 触发条件, 分析步骤, 安全原则); all content is appropriately inline with no nested references, though at ~130 lines the report-generation detail could optionally be split out.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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.

The description is specific and names a clear niche with four concrete capabilities, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, capping completeness, and its keyword set lacks common synonyms/variations. Adding a 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases would lift the two weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks about family medical history, genetic/hereditary risk, or wants a family health report.'

Add natural synonym keywords users actually say — '家族病史/家族病史分析', '遗传/遗传性', '家谱健康', 'hereditary' — to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Tighten the action verbs to more concrete operations (e.g. 'compute genetic risk score', 'generate HTML report') to push specificity toward 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and lists four concrete actions — '分析家族病史', '评估遗传风险', '识别家庭健康模式', '提供个性化预防建议' — covering analysis, risk, patterns, and advice; the verbs are slightly generic so it falls just short of the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' (the four actions) but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords (家族病史, 遗传风险, 家庭健康模式, 预防建议) are present but common user-facing variations and synonyms are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing variations' anchor rather than the fuller coverage of anchor 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Family-health / genetic-risk analysis is a clear niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill; minor overlap risk with general health trackers places it at anchor 4 rather than the fully-distinct anchor 5.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

87%

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

Validation14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

14

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
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.