CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

53

Quality

67%

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 ./scientific-skills/Other/academic-norm-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

38%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 skill-specific sections (When to Use, Key Features, Example Usage, Implementation Details) are solid and concrete, but the body is heavily padded with generic boilerplate and repeatedly points to bundle files (references/guide.md, assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md) that do not exist, leaving the documented execution path incomplete.

Suggestions

Delete the generic template sections (When Not to Use, Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Deterministic Output Rules, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Completion Checklist, Input Validation, Quick Validation, Scope Reminder) — they consume context without adding skill-specific instruction; keep the genuinely specific parts (When to Use, Key Features, Example Usage, Implementation Details).

Fix the dangling references: either ship the actual references/guide.md and assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md files in the bundle or remove every mention of them and inline the essential checklist and output format directly in SKILL.md.

Replace the abstract Recommended Workflow with a concrete, skill-specific sequence (parse the manuscript → cross-check in-text citations against the reference list → verify abbreviation first-use definitions → flag repeated/high-similarity passages → emit the prioritized issue report) that includes an explicit validation checkpoint before returning results.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Roughly half of the ~220-line body is generic template filler that adds no skill-specific knowledge: "Do not use this skill when the required source data, identifiers, files, or credentials are missing", "Deterministic Output Rules", "Validation and Safety Rules", "Completion Checklist", and a Quick Validation code block stating "No local script validation step is required for this skill." This matches anchor 2 (several padded sections). It is not 3 because the padding is extensive (10+ boilerplate sections) rather than occasional; not 1 because it never explains background concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 5

Actionability

There is genuinely concrete guidance — a worked input/output example and checks like "First occurrence definition: `Full Term (ABBR)`" and "One-to-one resolvability: each in-text citation maps to a reference entry" — but the Run section only says "Use `assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md` as the preferred structured output format... and follow `references/guide.md`", and neither file exists in the bundle, so the documented output format is unavailable. This matches anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details); not 4 because the referenced templates that define the preferred execution path are dangling.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

"Recommended Workflow" lists a coherent 4-step sequence (validate inputs → select execution path → produce output → final validation pass), but the steps are abstract ("Select the documented execution path and prefer the simplest supported command or procedure") with no concrete checkpoints, matching anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit). Not 4 because no step names a verifiable condition; not 2 because the sequence is coherent and the Example Usage walkthrough plus Failure Handling partially compensate.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body repeatedly references `references/guide.md` and `assets/academic_compliance_checklist.md`, but the bundle contains only SKILL.md — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist — so the references are dangling, while the 220-line monolith inlines the checklists and output templates that belong in those files. This matches anchor 2 (content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined). Not 3 because clearly-signaled-but-broken references are worse than the 'not clearly signaled' references of anchor 3; not 1 because there is no multi-level nested reference chain.

2 / 5

Total

10

/

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, third-person, single-sentence description that states three concrete capabilities and an explicit 'use it when' clause with three trigger contexts. Its main weakness is keyword coverage: it lacks the most natural synonyms users would say ('references', 'plagiarism', 'manuscript') and one trigger phrase ('academic writing QA') is unnatural.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists three concrete, domain-named actions — "Detects content similarity, verifies standardized citations and abbreviations, and flags potential academic integrity risks" — matching anchor 4's pattern of several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not 5 because it omits sub-capabilities a comprehensive listing would include (e.g., citation-to-reference-list cross-matching, first-use abbreviation definitions, prioritized issue reporting).

4 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions in the anchor-5 pattern: a clear what ("Detects content similarity, verifies standardized citations and abbreviations, and flags potential academic integrity risks") and a concrete when with explicit trigger contexts ("use it before submission, during academic writing QA, or for compliance reviews"). Not 4, because the when-clause names three specific triggering situations rather than being merely present-but-vague.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user-facing keywords are present: "citations", "abbreviations", "academic integrity", "before submission", "compliance reviews" — good coverage comparable to anchor 4's "PDF files, forms, document extraction". It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms are missing: "references", "plagiarism", "manuscript", "paper", and "reference list" are the most likely user terms, and "academic writing QA" is stilted rather than natural.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The academic-integrity/citation-verification focus ("flags potential academic integrity risks") carves a clear niche with minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4. It is not 5 because the trigger "during academic writing QA" could also plausibly match a generic proofreading or editing skill; it is not 3 because the scope is far narrower than "Works with document files".

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

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
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.