CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

comparison-table-gen

Auto-generates comparison tables for concepts, drugs, or study results.

50

Quality

55%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/comparison-table-gen/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 skill is genuinely actionable with concrete commands and a real script, but it is padded with repetitive generic boilerplate and weakly-signaled references that hurt token efficiency and navigation.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated `py_compile`/`--help` blocks (keep one Audit-Ready section) and cut generic process prose ('bounded deliverable', 'structured execution path') that Claude already knows.

Fix the 'See `## X` above' cross-references that actually point to later sections, or replace them with direct links to references/guidelines.md and its specific contents.

Move or trim inlined boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) into references/ or a separate doc, and link to it explicitly so SKILL.md stays a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably verbose: generic boilerplate ('produce a bounded deliverable', 'structured execution path'), the same `python -m py_compile scripts/main.py` command repeated across Quick Check, Audit-Ready, and Example Usage, and broken cross-references ('See `## Features` above' pointing to later sections).

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready commands in Usage ('python scripts/main.py --items "Drug A,Drug B" --attributes "Mechanism,Dose,Side Effects"'), a concrete Parameters table, and a real scripts/main.py, with only minor gaps in output interpretation.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step Workflow is backed by scope validation, a `py_compile` Quick Check, and an Error Handling fallback; the operation is non-destructive so the destructive-cap does not apply, though two competing workflow lists (Example run plan vs Workflow) introduce minor redundancy.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle files are real and one level deep (references/guidelines.md, scripts/main.py), but references are vaguely signaled ('references/ contains...') rather than linked to specific files, and generic sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle, Evaluation Criteria) are inlined instead of split out.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

53%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 is concrete and third-person with a clear niche, but it states only the 'what' and omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, leaving completeness and trigger coverage at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'when' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to compare drugs, treatments, concepts, or study results side-by-side.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users actually say: 'compare', 'side-by-side', 'comparison matrix', and '.md/.json' output formats.

List one or two more concrete actions (e.g. 'renders Markdown and HTML comparison tables') to lift specificity above a single action.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('comparison tables') and one concrete action ('Auto-generates') plus subjects ('concepts, drugs, or study results'), but lists only a single action rather than several, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' ('Auto-generates comparison tables...') but no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit 'when' guidance, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords ('comparison tables', 'drugs', 'study results') but misses common natural variations users would say ('compare', 'side-by-side', 'matrix') and any file extensions, matching the score-3 anchor.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The medical/research framing ('drugs', 'study results') carves a fairly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against generic table-generation skills, matching the score-4 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.