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.

Quality

81%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

62%

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

This skill provides solid structural guidance for biomedical outline generation with clear type classification, output contracts, and a well-sequenced workflow. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete output examples (showing what a completed outline looks like for each type) and moderate verbosity with some redundant sections. The content would benefit from trimming redundancies and adding at least one complete input→output example.

Suggestions

Add at least one complete example showing an input and the corresponding full outline output for one of the three types, so Claude has a concrete reference for format and depth.

Consolidate the 'When to Use' and 'Type Recognition Rules' sections, which largely duplicate each other, to reduce token usage.

Remove or significantly shorten explanations Claude already knows (e.g., 'do not fabricate citations' is already part of Claude's base behavior) to improve conciseness.

Consider splitting the three type-specific output contracts into a separate reference file to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file length.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is reasonably structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity—e.g., the 'When Not to Use' section states obvious things Claude already knows (don't fabricate results), and the type recognition rules partially duplicate the 'When to Use' section. The validation shortcut section adds little value. Could be tightened by ~30%.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides clear output contracts and type detection rules, which is good structured guidance. However, it lacks concrete output examples—no sample outline is shown for any of the three types. The input examples are provided but without corresponding output examples, making it harder to know exactly what the generated outline should look like.	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 recovery. The completion checklist adds a final verification layer. For a non-destructive generation task, this level of workflow clarity is strong.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content is well-organized with clear section headers, but it's a long monolithic file (~180 lines) with no references to supporting files. The type-specific output contracts and recognition rules could be split into separate reference files. The optional validation script is mentioned but no bundle files exist to support it.	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.

This is a strong skill description that clearly defines a specific niche (biomedical academic outline generation), lists concrete output types, and provides explicit trigger conditions with natural keywords. It uses proper third-person voice and is concise without being vague. The description effectively differentiates itself from general writing or academic skills through its biomedical focus and specific document types.

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'). The 'Use when' clause is explicit with concrete trigger conditions.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong 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 distinctive 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 specificity of both the domain and the output format.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 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: d915031

Reviewed: 5 days 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.