academic-norm-review

Detects content similarity, verifies standardized citations and abbreviations, and flags potential academic integrity risks; use it before submission, during academic writing QA, or for compliance reviews.

Quality

70%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Other/academic-norm-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

48%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 body contains genuinely useful domain content (concrete I/O example, per-category checks) but is weighed down by extensive generic boilerplate and references to bundle files that are not present.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate tail (Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Deterministic Output Rules, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Completion Checklist, Input Validation, Quick Validation, Scope Reminder) — these restate generic skill-operating rules Claude already follows and add no domain value.

Add the missing bundle files (references/guide.md and assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md) or inline the essential checklist content so the referenced detail is actually accessible.

Tighten the 'Implementation Details' section by replacing prose Goal/Checks/Outputs lists with a compact, executable review procedure or a directly-usable checklist to lift actionability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Quotes generic boilerplate sections — 'Required Inputs', 'Deterministic Output Rules', 'Output Contract', 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Completion Checklist', 'Input Validation', and a 'Quick Validation' that states 'No local script validation step is required' — adding several padded, non-domain-specific sections, matching the 2-anchor for noticeably verbose with several unnecessary padded sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	Quotes a concrete input excerpt and a structured sample output with 'Location', 'Evidence', and 'Suggestion' fields, plus per-category 'Checks'/'Outputs', but the executable procedure relies on 'assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md' and 'references/guide.md' which are not present, leaving guidance incomplete per the 3-anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Quotes a sequenced 'Implementation Details' (Citation Verification → Abbreviation Standards → Similarity → Output) each with Goal/Checks/Outputs, plus a 'Run a final validation pass' step and 'Completion Checklist', giving a clear sequence with most checkpoints present, just short of the 5-anchor's explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Quotes well-signaled one-level references to 'references/guide.md' and 'assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md', but no bundle files exist in references/ or assets/, so the referenced detail content is inaccessible and the skill is effectively a monolithic doc — matching the 3-anchor where structure exists but referenced content is not actually available.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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, third-person description that clearly communicates both capability and trigger conditions with concrete actions. The only minor gap is trigger-term synonym coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes 'Detects content similarity, verifies standardized citations and abbreviations, and flags potential academic integrity risks' — three concrete, comprehensive actions covering the skill's full scope, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions rather than the 4-anchor's minor gaps.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly states both what ('Detects content similarity, verifies standardized citations...') and when ('use it before submission, during academic writing QA, or for compliance reviews') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5-anchor exactly.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Quotes 'before submission, during academic writing QA, or for compliance reviews' — good natural keyword coverage, but missing common synonyms like 'citation check', 'plagiarism', or 'similarity', so it sits below the 5-anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The academic-integrity / citation-compliance niche ('standardized citations and abbreviations', 'academic integrity risks') is clearly distinct with minimal overlap risk against generic document skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 6 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Other/academic-norm-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 2 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.