CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

competitor-trial-monitor

Monitor competitor clinical trial progress and alert on market risks.

49

Quality

53%

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/competitor-trial-monitor/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 highly actionable with concrete per-command examples and a clean structure, but it is weighed down by verbose generic boilerplate and a missing validation feedback loop in the core workflow. Progressive disclosure is solid thanks to a real, well-signaled reference file.

Suggestions

Remove or condense generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Test Cases) that do not teach Claude anything skill-specific, and delete the confusing 'See `## X` above' pointers.

Reconcile the dependency contradiction — keep either the `pip install requests python-dateutil` line or the 'No additional Python packages required' line, not both.

Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint in the Workflow (e.g. run `python -m py_compile scripts/main.py` and verify the watchlist/alert output after scan) so batch API operations clear the workflow_clarity cap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably padded with generic templated boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Test Cases) plus awkward self-references ('See `## Features` above'), and a contradiction between the Dependencies block ('pip install requests python-dateutil') and Prerequisites ('No additional Python packages required').

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands for every subtask (add/list/remove/scan/report) with real NCT examples and parameter tables, with only minor gaps keeping it below a 5.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A sequenced Workflow and Audit-Ready Commands exist, but the main workflow lacks explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoints for the batch/API operations (scan, report), and the rubric caps batch-operation workflows without validation at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is well-organized with clear section headers and a one-level-deep, correctly-signaled reference to references/audit-reference.md (a real file); minor gaps because substantial reference-style content (alert rules, parameter tables) is inlined rather than split out.

4 / 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 states a clear purpose and niche but stops at the 'what' without any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, leaving it mid-range across all dimensions. It is concise and distinct, yet not comprehensive enough to score highly.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete user triggers, e.g. 'Use when tracking competitor drug trial milestones (enrollment, unblinding, results) or assessing market-competition risk from rival programs.'

Broaden trigger terms with natural synonyms users actually say — 'trial status', 'NCT ID', 'pharma competition', 'regulatory approval risk' — to improve trigger_term_quality.

Surface one or two more concrete capabilities (watchlist management, risk reporting) in the description to lift specificity from 1-2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('competitor clinical trial progress') and two concrete actions ('Monitor...progress', 'alert on market risks'), but coverage is not comprehensive — no mention of tracking, reporting, or watchlist management that the body later reveals.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' but no 'when' / 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3; the when is entirely absent rather than weakly implied.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant domain keywords ('clinical trial', 'competitor', 'market risks') but misses natural variations or synonyms a user might say (e.g. 'trial status', 'pharma competition', 'NCT').

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'competitor clinical trial monitoring' niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general clinical-trial or market-intelligence skills; not a 5 because the triggers are not sharply differentiated from broader market-monitoring skills.

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.