biotech-pitch-deck-narrative
Use biotech-pitch-deck-narrative for academic writing workflows that need structured investor-facing storytelling, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
36
33%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/biotech-pitch-deck-narrative/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%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 fails to clearly articulate what concrete actions the skill performs, relying on abstract qualities instead. The framing around 'academic writing workflows' combined with 'investor-facing storytelling' creates a confusing and potentially contradictory scope. While it includes a 'Use when' structure, the trigger terms are insufficient and the lack of specific capabilities makes it hard for Claude to confidently select this skill.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Creates biotech pitch deck narratives with problem/solution framing, market sizing slides, pipeline summaries, and competitive landscape analysis.'
Clarify the contradictory framing — resolve whether this is for academic writing or investor pitch decks, and add natural trigger terms like 'pitch deck', 'investor presentation', 'fundraising deck', 'Series A', 'biotech startup'.
Strengthen the 'Use when' clause with explicit, unambiguous triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to create or refine a biotech investor pitch deck, fundraising narrative, or startup presentation.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'structured investor-facing storytelling, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' but these are abstract qualities rather than concrete actions. It does not list specific actions like 'create pitch decks', 'generate slide content', or 'structure narrative arcs'. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | It has a 'Use when' clause ('academic writing workflows that need structured investor-facing storytelling'), but the 'what does this do' part is very weak — it never clearly states what the skill actually produces or performs. The 'when' guidance is present but oddly framed around 'academic writing workflows' which seems contradictory to 'investor-facing storytelling'. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'biotech', 'pitch-deck', 'investor-facing', and 'academic writing', but misses common natural terms users would say such as 'pitch deck', 'fundraising', 'Series A', 'slides', 'biotech startup', or 'investor presentation'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'biotech' and 'pitch-deck-narrative' provides some niche specificity, but the mention of 'academic writing workflows' creates confusion and potential overlap with academic writing skills. The conflation of academic writing and investor pitch decks muddies the distinctiveness. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
27%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is significantly over-engineered and verbose for what it delivers. It repeats the same commands and concepts across multiple sections, includes extensive boilerplate (risk tables, security checklists, lifecycle metadata) that doesn't help Claude execute the task, and lacks the concrete examples and output formats that would make the narrative construction actionable. The core value — how to actually construct a biotech pitch deck narrative — is buried under process scaffolding.
Suggestions
Consolidate redundant sections: merge 'Quick Check' and 'Audit-Ready Commands' into one, remove duplicate 'python -m py_compile' commands, and eliminate broken cross-references like 'See ## Prerequisites above'.
Add a concrete example showing an actual input (e.g., a brief company description) and the expected narrative output structure with real content, not just the abstract template headings.
Move Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, and Lifecycle Status into a separate reference file to reduce the main skill to under 100 lines of essential guidance.
Fix the workflow to clearly distinguish between script-based execution and manual narrative construction, with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'verify claims against supplied evidence before proceeding to next section').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Multiple sections restate the same information (e.g., 'python -m py_compile scripts/main.py' appears 3 times, 'Quick Check' and 'Audit-Ready Commands' are nearly identical). Cross-references like 'See ## Prerequisites above' and 'See ## Workflow above' point to sections that don't precede them. Many sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) add bulk without providing actionable value Claude doesn't already know. The skill explains obvious concepts and pads extensively. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides some concrete commands (python scripts/main.py --stage series-a --audience biotech-specialist) and a parameter table, which is useful. However, the actual narrative construction guidance is vague — the workflow steps are high-level instructions like 'Confirm the financing stage' and 'Return a structured deck narrative' without showing concrete examples of inputs, outputs, or the actual narrative format. No example output is provided. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Workflow section provides a 5-step sequence with a stop condition (step 5), and Error Handling covers fallback paths. However, there are no explicit validation checkpoints between steps, and the workflow mixes script execution with manual narrative construction without clearly delineating when each applies. The 'Example run plan' in Example Usage is a separate 4-step workflow that partially overlaps, creating confusion. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a monolithic wall of text with 20+ sections, many of which are redundant or could be consolidated. It references 'references/audit-reference.md' and 'scripts/main.py' but no bundle files are provided to verify these exist. Internal cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above') are broken (Prerequisites appears below, not above). Content that could be in separate files (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) is all inline, bloating the main skill file. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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
73f6514
- 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.