biomed-outline-generator
Generates structured biomedical outlines for review articles, discussion sections, and thesis proposals. Use when a user provides biomedical keywords, results/discussion text, or a proposal title plus background and needs a directly usable academic writing scaffold.
84
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
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 a strong description that clearly defines a specific niche (biomedical academic outline generation), lists concrete output types, and provides explicit trigger conditions with natural user-facing keywords. It uses proper third-person voice and is concise without being vague. The 'Use when' clause effectively specifies the input conditions that should activate this skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'structured biomedical outlines for review articles, discussion sections, and thesis proposals.' These are distinct, well-defined output types rather than vague language. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Generates structured biomedical outlines for review articles, discussion sections, and thesis proposals') and when ('Use when a user provides biomedical keywords, results/discussion text, or a proposal title plus background and needs a directly usable academic writing scaffold'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'biomedical keywords', 'review articles', 'discussion sections', 'thesis proposals', 'proposal title', 'background', 'academic writing scaffold'. These cover the domain well and match how researchers would phrase requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly specific niche combining biomedical domain + outline generation + specific academic document types. Unlikely to conflict with general writing skills or non-biomedical academic skills due to the precise scope. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a competent skill with strong workflow clarity and well-defined type detection logic and output contracts. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete output examples (showing what a generated outline actually looks like) and some redundancy across sections that inflates token usage. The actionability would improve significantly with even one complete input→output example pair.
Suggestions
Add at least one complete input→output example showing a full generated outline for one type, so Claude has a concrete template to follow rather than abstract instructions like 'enrich with academic logic'.
Consolidate overlapping sections: merge 'Validation and Safety Rules' with 'Deterministic Output Rules' and the step-5 safety pass into a single safety/constraints section to reduce redundancy.
Consider splitting the three output contracts into a separate CONTRACTS.md reference file to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file length.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity. Sections like 'When Not to Use' and 'Validation and Safety Rules' overlap, and the type recognition rules partially duplicate the 'When to Use' section. The 'Deterministic Output Rules' section restates things already implied. However, it doesn't over-explain concepts Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides clear output contracts and type detection rules, which are concrete and useful. However, the actual outline generation guidance is somewhat abstract—'enrich with academic logic' and 'add actionable subpoints' lack specificity. There are no concrete output examples showing what a generated outline should look like, only input examples. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with validation at step 1 (domain/sufficiency check) and a final safety pass at step 5. The fallback/refusal contract provides explicit error handling. The completion checklist adds a final verification layer. For an outline generation task, this level of workflow clarity is appropriate and thorough. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear section headers and logical grouping, but it's somewhat monolithic—all content is inline in a single file. The optional validation script reference is good, but the skill could benefit from splitting detailed output contracts or examples into separate reference files, especially given its length (~170 lines). | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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
f82162b
- 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.