clinicaltrials-gov-parser
Monitor and summarize competitor clinical trial status changes from ClinicalTrials.gov. Trigger: When user asks to track clinical trials, monitor trial status changes, get updates on specific trials, or analyze competitor trial activities. Use cases: Pharma competitive intelligence, trial monitoring, status tracking, recruitment updates, completion alerts.
76
67%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
91%
2.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Evidence insights/clinicaltrials-gov-parser/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 well-structured skill description with explicit trigger guidance and clear use cases. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities could be more detailed - it says 'monitor and summarize' but doesn't specify what data points are tracked or what the summaries contain. The domain specificity (ClinicalTrials.gov, pharma) makes it highly distinctive.
Suggestions
Expand the capability description to include specific actions like 'extract enrollment numbers, track phase transitions, compare timelines across competitors, generate status change reports'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (clinical trials, ClinicalTrials.gov) and some actions (monitor, summarize, track status changes), but lacks comprehensive specific actions like what data is extracted, what summaries include, or how alerts work. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (monitor and summarize competitor clinical trial status changes from ClinicalTrials.gov) and when (explicit 'Trigger:' clause with multiple scenarios plus 'Use cases:' section with specific applications). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'track clinical trials', 'monitor trial status', 'competitor trial activities', 'recruitment updates', 'completion alerts', plus domain-specific terms like 'pharma competitive intelligence'. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very clear niche with distinct triggers - ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trials, pharma competitive intelligence, trial status changes are highly specific and unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
44%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides a reasonable API reference structure but lacks the actionable depth needed for Claude to effectively monitor clinical trials. The excessive boilerplate (security checklists, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria) consumes tokens without adding value, while the core workflow for actually monitoring and detecting status changes is underspecified.
Suggestions
Remove boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't provide actionable guidance for Claude
Add a concrete workflow showing the complete monitoring loop: initial search → store baseline → periodic check → detect changes → report differences
Include actual error handling patterns and validation steps for API responses, especially for rate limiting and network failures
Show a concrete example of what a 'status change' looks like in the output, so Claude knows what to report to users
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes substantial boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that add little actionable value and consume tokens. The core functionality is reasonably concise but surrounded by unnecessary scaffolding. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete Python and CLI examples that appear executable, but the code references a non-existent module structure (scripts/main.py, ClinicalTrialsMonitor class) without showing actual implementation. It's more of an API specification than executable guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No clear workflow sequence for monitoring trials over time. Missing validation steps for API responses, error handling patterns, and feedback loops for when API calls fail or rate limits are hit. The 'monitor' use case lacks explicit steps for ongoing monitoring. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with clear sections and well-signaled references to external files (api-docs.md, status-codes.md, examples.md). Content is appropriately organized with tables for parameters and methods. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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
ca9aaa4
- 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.