CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

clinical-study-info-extractor

Batch extracts and verifies structured information (PMID, title, abstract, methodology, results, etc.) from clinical research literature using PMIDs. Use when the user wants to extract details from specific PMIDs.

60

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/clinical-study-info-extractor/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 has a clear workflow and real, verified bundle references, but is weakened by templated boilerplate bullets, generic non-executable examples, and broken "above" cross-references. Tightening the filler and fixing the section pointers would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove the templated "When to Use" bullets that add no skill-specific signal (e.g. "scripts/utils.py is the most direct path", "package behavior rather than a generic answer") and consolidate "Key Features" so it does not echo the description.

Replace the generic "Example run plan" and py_compile/--help snippets with one complete, copy-paste runnable example that chains normalize_pmids -> fetch_pubmed_data -> extract/verify -> format_table against a small real PMID list, showing expected output.

Fix the broken cross-references: "See ## Usage above" and "See ## Workflow above" currently point to sections that appear below; relink them (or to references/extraction_rules.md) and add explicit fetch-failure/retry handling to the Workflow narrative.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core Workflow, Usage, and Quality Rules sections are reasonably tight, but the "When to Use" bullets and "Key Features" contain templated filler (e.g. "Use this skill when a evidence insight task needs a packaged method") and the description is echoed, adding padding.

3 / 5

Actionability

It names real, verified functions (normalize_pmids, fetch_pubmed_data, format_table) and a real reference file, but provides no complete copy-paste runnable extraction example; the bash snippets are only py_compile/--help and the "Example run plan" is generic rather than executable.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step pipeline (Normalize -> Search -> Extract -> Verify -> Format) is given with an explicit verification step, and the extract-then-correct 2-phase prompt in references/extraction_rules.md provides a validate-fix loop; minor gaps are the lack of fetch-failure handling and retry guidance in the narrative.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle structure is appropriate with real one-level-deep references (references/extraction_rules.md, scripts/utils.py) and organized sections, but cross-references like "See ## Usage above" and "See ## Workflow above" point to sections that are actually below, weakening navigation.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong, concrete description that clearly states both capability and trigger condition with domain-specific terms. Minor improvements would add action coverage (search, format) and synonyms like PubMed to broaden natural triggering.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names concrete actions ("Batch extracts and verifies structured information") with enumerated fields (PMID, title, abstract, methodology, results), but the action verbs are limited to extract/verify and omit search/output/formatting steps, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Batch extracts and verifies structured information ... using PMIDs") and when ("Use when the user wants to extract details from specific PMIDs") with a concrete trigger phrase.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural domain terms a user would say ("clinical research literature", "PMIDs", "extract details from specific PMIDs"), but misses common synonyms such as PubMed, medical literature, or clinical trials.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The PMID/clinical-research-literature niche is mostly distinct with low conflict risk, though it could marginally overlap with broader literature-search or research-summarization skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
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.