CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

anki-card-creator

Use anki-card-creator for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for study-card generation.

41

Quality

52%

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/Academic Writing/anki-card-creator/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 delivers a genuinely usable core: an executable script, a complete CLI parameter table, a sequenced workflow with input-form validation and missing-field fallbacks, and a real one-level-deep reference file. Its weaknesses are template bloat — duplicated command blocks, a verbatim restatement of the description, circular 'see above' filler, and inlined audit/lifecycle boilerplate that should live in references/ — plus an example that never shows the output it promises.

Suggestions

Collapse 'Quick Check' and 'Audit-Ready Commands' into one command block and delete the 'Key Features' section that restates the description verbatim, cutting the body by roughly a third.

Move Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, and Evaluation Criteria into references/audit-reference.md (or a separate references file) and keep only a one-line pointer, so the body stays an overview.

Make the 'Example' section end-to-end: show a Q/A input snippet and the resulting TSV card row, and replace the non-portable 'cd "20260318/..."' with a path-relative command.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably padded: 'Key Features' restates the description verbatim, 'Quick Check' and 'Audit-Ready Commands' are identical command blocks, and filler like 'See ## Prerequisites above' / 'See ## Workflow above' plus a time-sensitive 'Next Review Date: 2026-03-20' add tokens without instruction. Not anchor-1 because it never explains basic concepts Claude already knows — the padding is template boilerplate rather than tutoring.

2 / 5

Actionability

Runnable commands ('python -m py_compile scripts/main.py', 'python scripts/main.py --help') and a complete parameter table give mostly executable guidance with minor gaps: the 'Example' section shows only an input line with no expected output, and the 'cd "20260318/scientific-skills/..."' path in Example Usage is non-portable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section gives a clear 5-step sequence with real checkpoints (check input form before converting, py_compile before execution, stop and request minimum missing fields), and Error Handling adds a fallback loop if the script fails. Held below 5 because 'Example run plan' and 'Workflow' are two overlapping sequences with no explicit validate-then-fix-then-retry loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

references/audit-reference.md exists and is clearly signaled one level deep from the References section, and scripts/main.py is properly packaged. But the SKILL.md body inlines large meta sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that belong in a reference file, so structure is present yet meaningfully better-organizable rather than only having minor gaps.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

27%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 buzzword-heavy and reads as process boilerplate rather than a capability statement: it never says the skill creates Anki-importable flashcards from Q/A text, drug summaries, or anatomy notes. It is written in second-person imperative voice, contains no 'Use when' trigger clause, and would compete with academic-writing skills for the wrong requests. Not clearly anchor-1 vague only because 'study-card generation' and the Anki name do convey the domain.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person leading with concrete actions, e.g. 'Creates Anki-importable flashcard decks from Q/A text files, drug summaries, and anatomy notes, outputting structured TSV with atomic single-fact cards.'

Add an explicit trigger clause covering natural user phrasings: 'Use when the user mentions Anki, flashcards, study cards, spaced repetition, or wants to turn medical notes or lecture summaries into recall cards.'

Drop the abstract workflow language ('structured execution, explicit assumptions, clear output boundaries') — it carries no trigger value and inflates conflict risk with academic-writing skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The only concrete action named is 'study-card generation'; 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' are abstract buzzwords, matching anchor 2 (domain named, actions generic), then reduced by 1 because the description is written in imperative second-person voice ('Use anki-card-creator for...') rather than third person.

1 / 5

Completeness

There is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3; the 'what' itself is vague (the skill's real jobs — converting Q/A text into Anki-importable TSV and building drug/anatomy cards — are never stated), so it sits at anchor 2: vague what, no when.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'anki' and 'study-card' are relevant keywords, but the natural phrases users would actually say (flashcards, medical notes, Q/A, memorization, .tsv) are missing and most of the description ('structured execution', 'explicit assumptions') is vocabulary no user would utter — some relevant keywords, missing common variations.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Framing the skill as 'academic writing workflows' creates high overlap with generic writing and academic-skills, inviting false triggers for writing tasks while failing to trigger for the flashcard/medical-study requests it actually serves.

2 / 5

Total

8

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

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.