CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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 auth...

67

Quality

82%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body delivers strong, executable code examples and concrete commands, but is weighed down by verbose generic boilerplate, redundant sections, and dead reference paths. Tightening the prose and fixing the missing references would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate sections (Quality Checklist, Output Requirements, Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Quick Validation) that restate knowledge Claude already has, and merge the two 'When to Use' and two 'References' sections into single, concise versions.

Fix progressive disclosure by either creating the referenced references/guide.md, references/examples/, and references/api-docs/ files or removing those dead links, keeping only references/audit-reference.md which exists.

Add an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop to the Workflow (e.g., after equity/dispute analysis, re-check issues and only proceed when resolved) to lift workflow clarity above a 2.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is padded with generic boilerplate Claude already knows (Quality Checklist, Output Requirements, Error Handling, Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Quick Validation) and has redundant duplicate 'When to Use' and 'References' sections, matching the 'mostly efficient but includes unnecessary explanation' anchor rather than a lean score-3.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides multiple complete, executable Python examples (AuthorshipCreditGenerator with weighted criteria, CRediT role mapping, equity analysis) and concrete CLI commands like 'python scripts/main.py --contributions contributions.json --guidelines ICMJE --output authorship_order.json', matching the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready' anchor.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section lists five sequenced steps with an early-stop validation (step 2) and a fallback path (step 5), but checkpoints are implicit and there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop for the equity/dispute checking, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Structure exists with a valid one-level reference (references/audit-reference.md), but the first References section points to references/guide.md, references/examples/, and references/api-docs/ that do not exist, and inline boilerplate that should be separate keeps it at the 'some structure but could be better organized' anchor rather than a clean score-3.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

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.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, and explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it within a distinct academic-authorship niche. It is a strong, well-scoped description with no notable weaknesses.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'determining author order,' 'assigning CRediT contributor roles,' 'documenting individual contributions,' 'resolving authorship disputes,' and generating assignments following ICMJE guidelines and CRediT taxonomy — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicit 'Use when...' clause answers when, and 'Generates fair and transparent authorship assignments following ICMJE guidelines and CRediT taxonomy' answers what, satisfying both halves of the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural research-authorship terms a user would say — author order, CRediT contributor roles, authorship disputes, multi-institutional research — give good coverage of common variations, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (academic authorship/CRediT) with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation14 / 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: 3 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.