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.

Quality

61%

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/biotech-pitch-deck-narrative/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 is well-structured and actionable with a sequenced workflow, validation checkpoint, and a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference, but it is noticeably verbose for a single-script skill due to repeated commands, filler cross-references, and heavy boilerplate sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated compile/help commands into a single 'Audit-Ready Commands' section and remove the duplicate Quick Check and Example Usage copies.

Remove empty filler lines such as 'See `## Prerequisites` above for related details.' and 'See `## Workflow` above for related details.' that point at sections not actually above them.

Add one complete end-to-end example showing an input file invocation and the expected output JSON so the actionability reaches copy-paste-ready coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose for a single-script skill: the `python -m py_compile scripts/main.py` command is repeated across Example Usage, Quick Check, and Audit-Ready Commands; filler cross-references ('See `## Prerequisites` above for related details.') and repeated references mentions pad the document without adding guidance.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands (`py_compile`, `--help`, `python scripts/main.py --stage series-a --audience biotech-specialist`) and a Parameters table with real flags, but no full end-to-end run showing an input file and its produced output, leaving a minor gap.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow lists a clear 5-step sequence with an explicit stop-condition checkpoint (step 5: 'If scientific support or market context is missing, stop and request') and an Error Handling feedback loop, but the validation is parse-only (py_compile) rather than runtime, a minor gap.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear section structure with one well-signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/audit-reference.md, verified to exist and self-contained); some inlined boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle) could be split out, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 clearly targets a specific biotech-investor-narrative niche and answers both what and when via a 'Use … for …' construction, but its capabilities are stated as abstract features rather than concrete actions and it lacks the natural trigger-phrase variations users would actually say.

Suggestions

Rewrite capabilities as concrete actions, e.g. 'Drafts and rewrites biotech investor narratives, separates assumptions from value claims, and flags missing diligence.'

Add explicit natural trigger phrases users would say, e.g. 'Use when the user asks for a biotech pitch deck, investor narrative, or fundraising story.'

Include common synonyms/variations such as 'fundraising', 'seed/Series A deck', and 'investor Q&A' to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('biotech-pitch-deck-narrative') and a few capabilities ('structured investor-facing storytelling, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries'), but these read as features/properties rather than the concrete actions (extract, fill, merge) that anchor 3-5 exhibit.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'Use biotech-pitch-deck-narrative for academic writing workflows that need...' form answers both what (structured storytelling, assumptions, boundaries) and when (academic writing workflows needing those), but the when lacks the concrete trigger phrases ('Use when the user mentions...') that would reach 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant domain keywords ('biotech pitch deck', 'investor-facing storytelling', 'academic writing') a user might say, but misses common variations and synonyms (e.g. 'fundraising', 'investor narrative', 'seed deck'), landing at 'some relevant keywords but missing variations'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The biotech/investor-facing niche is fairly specific with distinct triggers, leaving only minor overlap risk with closely related general academic-writing or generic pitch-deck skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/biotech-pitch-deck-narrative/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.