authorship-credit-gen

Use when determining author order on research manuscripts, assigning CRediT contributor roles for transparency, documenting individual contributions to collaborative projects, or resolving authorship disputes in multi-institutional research. Generates fair and transparent authorship assignments following ICMJE guidelines and CRediT taxonomy. Helps research teams document contributions, resolve disputes, and ensure equitable credit distribution in academic publications.

Quality

67%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/authorship-credit-gen/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

100%

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 is an excellent skill description that clearly defines a specific academic niche. It uses third person voice correctly, provides comprehensive trigger terms that researchers would naturally use, and explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it. The domain-specific terminology (CRediT, ICMJE) makes it highly distinctive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'determining author order', 'assigning CRediT contributor roles', 'documenting individual contributions', 'resolving authorship disputes', 'Generates fair and transparent authorship assignments'. These are concrete, actionable capabilities.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Generates fair and transparent authorship assignments following ICMJE guidelines and CRediT taxonomy') and when ('Use when determining author order on research manuscripts, assigning CRediT contributor roles...'). The 'Use when' clause is present and comprehensive.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'author order', 'research manuscripts', 'CRediT', 'contributor roles', 'authorship disputes', 'multi-institutional research', 'ICMJE guidelines', 'academic publications'. These are terms researchers would naturally use.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Highly distinctive niche focused specifically on academic authorship and contribution tracking. Terms like 'CRediT taxonomy', 'ICMJE guidelines', 'authorship disputes', and 'author order' are unique to this domain and unlikely to conflict with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 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 redundancy, with the same information repeated across multiple sections (When to Use appears 3 times, workflow guidance is duplicated). While it provides concrete code examples for authorship determination, the examples show inconsistent API patterns and the workflow steps are generic boilerplate rather than domain-specific guidance for resolving authorship disputes or applying ICMJE guidelines.

Suggestions

Consolidate all 'When to Use' content into a single 2-3 line section and remove the redundant descriptions from 'Key Features' and other sections

Unify the Quick Start code to show one consistent initialization pattern and verify the module imports match actual file structure

Replace generic workflow steps with authorship-specific validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Verify all contributors meet ICMJE criteria', 'Confirm contribution weights sum to 1.0')

Remove duplicate sections (two Workflow sections, two References sections) and consolidate the Response Template/Output Requirements into a single output format section

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with massive redundancy - the 'When to Use' section repeats the description verbatim, 'Key Features' restates it again, and there's a separate 'When to Use This Skill' section. Multiple overlapping sections (Workflow appears twice, Quick Start has duplicate initialization code, references are listed multiple times).	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete Python code examples with specific method calls and parameters, but the code references modules (scripts.authorship_credit, AuthorshipCreditGenerator) that may not exist or match the actual implementation. The Quick Start shows two different initialization patterns suggesting inconsistency.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Contains workflow steps but they are generic boilerplate ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches') rather than specific to authorship determination. No validation checkpoints for the actual authorship assignment process - missing steps like 'verify all contributors are listed' or 'confirm contribution percentages sum correctly'.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References external files (references/guide.md, references/examples/, references/api-docs/) appropriately, but the main document is bloated with redundant sections that should be consolidated. The structure exists but content organization is poor with duplicate information scattered throughout.	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 12 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.