abstract-summarizer

Transform lengthy academic papers into concise, structured 250-word abstracts.

Quality

33%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/abstract-summarizer/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

32%

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 identifies a clear, specific task (creating academic abstracts) with a concrete output format (250 words), which is good for specificity. However, it lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and misses common user terminology variations, making it harder for Claude to reliably select this skill from a large pool.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks to summarize a research paper, create an abstract, or condense academic writing.'

Include natural keyword variations users might say: 'research paper', 'journal article', 'scientific paper', 'paper summary', 'write an abstract'.

Consider listing additional capabilities if applicable, such as 'extracts key findings, methodology, and conclusions' to strengthen specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (academic papers) and a specific action (transform into abstracts), but only describes one concrete action rather than multiple specific capabilities.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'academic papers' and 'abstracts', but misses common variations users might say such as 'research paper', 'journal article', 'summary', 'summarize', or 'paper abstract'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The specific mention of 'academic papers' and '250-word abstracts' provides some distinctiveness, but could overlap with general summarization skills without clearer trigger boundaries.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

35%

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

This skill suffers from severe verbosity and poor organization - it repeats workflow information multiple times, includes extensive boilerplate sections Claude doesn't need, and buries the useful Overview section after generic implementation details. The actionable content (Quality Checklist, field-specific handling table, common pitfalls) is valuable but diluted by redundant scaffolding.

Suggestions

Remove redundant sections: consolidate 'When to Use', 'Key Features', 'Implementation Details', and 'Workflow' into a single concise workflow section

Move the Overview section to the top and make it the primary content, removing generic boilerplate like 'Input Validation', 'Error Handling', and 'Response Template' sections

Either provide actual implementation of referenced Python modules or remove the API examples and focus on CLI usage only

Cut document length by 60%+ by removing explanations of what Claude already knows (e.g., what structured abstracts are, basic Python import patterns)

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with significant redundancy - the workflow is described multiple times (Example Usage, Implementation Details, Workflow section), and there's excessive boilerplate (Input Validation, Error Handling, Response Template sections) that Claude doesn't need. The document is ~400 lines when it could be ~100.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains executable code examples and CLI commands, but many examples reference modules (scripts/summarizer.py, scripts/batch.py) without showing their actual implementation. The Python API examples appear illustrative rather than copy-paste ready since the actual script contents aren't provided.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multiple workflow sections exist but they're generic and repetitive. The Quality Checklist provides good validation checkpoints, but the main workflow steps are vague ('validate the request', 'use the packaged script path'). Missing explicit validation between summarization steps.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to external files (references/, scripts/) are present and clearly listed, but the main document is bloated with content that should be in those referenced files. The Overview section appears mid-document after implementation details, showing poor organization.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Commit: 4a48721

Reviewed: about 10 hours 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.