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...

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/authorship-credit-gen/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%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 presents a structured overview but is undermined by non-executable code examples that mismatch the bundled script, broken reference paths, duplicated sections, and generic boilerplate that inflates token cost without adding skill-specific value.

Suggestions

Replace the Quick Start and Core Capabilities code with examples that use the actual bundled API (Author, Contribution, CRediTGenerator; generate_text/generate_json/generate_xml) and correct the CLI example to the real flags (--authors/--input/--format/--corresponding).

Remove the duplicated 'When to Use This Skill'/'When to Use' blocks and the duplicate 'References' section, and trim generic boilerplate (Quality Checklist, Output Requirements, Response Template) to skill-specific guidance only.

Fix progressive disclosure by either creating the referenced references/guide.md, references/examples/, and references/api-docs/ files or removing those broken links, keeping only references that actually exist in the bundle.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose: the description is duplicated verbatim inside 'When to Use', there are two separate 'References' sections, and large generic boilerplate blocks (Quality Checklist, Output Requirements, Response Template, User Checkpoints) restate things Claude already knows.	2 / 5
Actionability	The Quick Start and Core Capabilities code reference classes and methods (AuthorshipCreditGen, AuthorshipCreditGenerator, determine_order, assign_credit_roles, analyze_equity) that do not exist in the bundled scripts/main.py, and the CLI example uses --contributions/--guidelines flags the script does not support, so the concrete-looking guidance will not execute; only py_compile and --help are valid.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A 5-step Workflow with fallback language and a Quick Check/Quick Validation section gives a real sequence, but the checkpoints are generic and validation only confirms the script parses rather than verifying the actual authorship operations.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is organized into clear sections and one reference (references/audit-reference.md) is valid, but three referenced paths (references/guide.md, references/examples/, references/api-docs/) do not exist in the bundle and substantial API-style content is inlined rather than split out.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 explicitly pairs a 'Use when' trigger with a concrete 'what', covers multiple specific actions, and occupies a distinct niche, but the 'what' clause is truncated mid-word, which slightly weakens completeness and specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names several concrete actions — 'determining author order', 'assigning CRediT contributor roles', 'documenting individual contributions', 'resolving authorship disputes' — but the final clause is truncated ('Generates fair and transparent auth...'), leaving a minor coverage gap short of a 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	It opens with an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause (when) and states 'Generates fair and transparent auth...' (what), so both are present; the 'what' is truncated mid-word, keeping it just below the fully explicit level-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a researcher would say ('author order on research manuscripts', 'CRediT contributor roles', 'authorship disputes') with good coverage, but a few common synonyms (e.g. 'contributor statement', 'journal submission') are absent, so it is not a comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (academic authorship, CRediT taxonomy, ICMJE guidelines) with distinct triggers and minimal realistic overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
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
Path: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/authorship-credit-gen/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 3 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.