adverse-event-narrative
1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as.
33
17%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/adverse-event-narrative/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description reads like generic process instructions rather than a skill description. It lacks any concrete actions, domain specificity, trigger terms, or 'use when' guidance. The text also appears truncated ('unsupported as' cuts off), further reducing its utility for skill selection.
Suggestions
Rewrite to specify the concrete domain and actions this skill performs (e.g., 'Validates API request parameters against schema definitions' rather than generic 'validate that the request matches the documented scope').
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms that describe when Claude should select this skill over others.
Remove the numbered process-step format and instead describe capabilities and triggers concisely in third person (e.g., 'Performs X, Y, Z. Use when...').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description contains no concrete actions or domain-specific capabilities. Phrases like 'confirm the user objective' and 'validate that the request matches the documented scope' are abstract process steps, not specific skill actions. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description fails to answer 'what does this do' in any meaningful way and completely lacks a 'when should Claude use it' clause. It reads like internal process instructions rather than a skill description. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | There are no natural keywords a user would say. Terms like 'non-negotiable constraints', 'documented scope', and 'unsupported as' (which appears truncated) are not phrases users would use when seeking help with a task. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is extremely generic—confirming objectives and validating scope could apply to virtually any skill. It provides no domain, file type, or task-specific information to distinguish it from other skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 redundancy, with the same description repeated across multiple sections, and excessive verbosity explaining domain concepts (CIOMS, WHO-UMC, MedDRA) that Claude already knows. The domain-specific content (quality checklists, common pitfalls, regulatory formats) is genuinely useful but buried in a document that's roughly 3x longer than necessary. The code examples appear illustrative rather than verified executable, and the workflow lacks proper validation feedback loops for a safety-critical medical domain.
Suggestions
Eliminate the repeated description text from 'When to Use', 'Key Features', and 'Workflow' sections—state each concept once only.
Remove explanations of domain concepts Claude already knows (CIOMS structure, WHO-UMC categories, what MedDRA is) and replace with just the specific configuration values or coding rules unique to this tool.
Move the Core Capabilities section (CIOMS structure, temporal analysis, causality evaluation, multi-format output) into a separate reference file and link to it from the main skill.
Add explicit validation feedback loops in the workflow for when quality checks fail or medical review identifies issues, especially given this is a safety-critical medical domain.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose with significant redundancy. The description from the YAML frontmatter is repeated verbatim in 'When to Use', 'Key Features', and 'Workflow' sections. There's extensive explanation of CIOMS guidelines, WHO-UMC categories, and regulatory concepts that Claude would already know. The document could be cut by 60%+ without losing actionable content. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides Python code examples with specific imports and method calls (NarrativeGenerator, timeline analysis, causality assessment), but these appear to be illustrative rather than verified executable code—the imports reference modules that may not exist as shown. The CLI commands (py_compile, --help) are concrete but shallow. The quality checklists and common pitfalls sections provide useful specific guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Workflow section provides a 5-step sequence and the Example Usage section has a 4-step run plan, but validation checkpoints are weak—'validate-only' flag is mentioned in Audit-Ready Commands but never explained. There's no explicit feedback loop for when narrative quality checks fail. The critical medical review step is mentioned but not integrated into the workflow sequence. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files well (references/ directory, scripts/ directory) and has clear section headers, but the main document is monolithic—the Core Capabilities section alone with its 4 subsections and extensive code examples could be split into separate reference files. The 'Implementation Details' section says 'See ## Workflow above' which is confusing since Workflow appears below it. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
8277276
- 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.