conference-abstract-adaptor
Adapt abstracts to meet specific conference word limits and formats.
30
23%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/conference-abstract-adaptor/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear domain (conference abstracts) and a specific task (adapting to word limits and formats), which gives it reasonable specificity. However, it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, misses common user trigger terms, and doesn't list enough concrete actions to fully distinguish itself from general writing or academic editing skills.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to shorten, reformat, or tailor an abstract for a conference submission, call for papers, or specific word/character limit.'
Include more natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'shorten abstract', 'submission guidelines', 'word count', 'character limit', 'call for papers', 'CFP'.
List additional concrete actions beyond adapting to word limits, such as 'restructure sections, trim content while preserving key findings, reformat references, and adjust tone for target audience'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (abstracts, conferences) and a couple of actions (adapt to word limits and formats), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like trimming content, restructuring sections, reformatting citations, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'when' is entirely absent (not even implied beyond the what), this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant keywords like 'abstracts', 'conference', 'word limits', and 'formats', but misses common variations users might say such as 'shorten abstract', 'submission requirements', 'paper abstract', 'character limit', or 'CFP'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'abstracts' and 'conference' provides some specificity, but it could overlap with general writing/editing skills or academic formatting skills without clearer trigger boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
14%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is heavily padded with generic template boilerplate that obscures the genuinely useful content (Parameters table, Supported Conferences table, CLI usage examples). The workflow sections are entirely generic and provide no domain-specific guidance on how abstract adaptation actually works. The document would be dramatically improved by removing ~60% of the boilerplate and adding concrete examples of input abstracts being transformed to meet conference requirements.
Suggestions
Remove all generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements) that add no task-specific value and consume significant token budget.
Add a concrete example showing an input abstract and the adapted output for a specific conference, demonstrating word count reduction and section restructuring.
Replace the generic workflow with task-specific steps: e.g., 1) Parse input abstract, 2) Check word count against conference limit, 3) If over limit, condense sections proportionally, 4) Verify required sections present, 5) Validate final word count.
Fix the broken cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above' when Prerequisites appears below) and consolidate the duplicated content between 'Example Usage', 'Usage', 'Workflow', and 'Implementation Details' sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Contains numerous sections that add no value (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria with generic test cases, Response Template). Multiple cross-references to sections that appear later ('See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above', 'See ## Workflow above') creating confusion. The core useful content (Parameters, Supported Conferences, Usage examples) is buried under boilerplate. Much of the content is generic template filler not specific to conference abstract adaptation. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The Parameters table, Usage examples, and Supported Conferences table provide concrete, actionable guidance. However, the workflow steps are generic and abstract ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope'), and there's no actual example of input/output showing how an abstract gets transformed. The CLI commands are executable but the core task logic is opaque. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow section is entirely generic boilerplate ('Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints') with no task-specific steps for abstract adaptation. There are no validation checkpoints specific to the domain (e.g., verify word count meets conference limit, check required sections are present). The 'Example run plan' is slightly better but still vague. No feedback loop for when the adapted abstract exceeds word limits. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The document is a monolithic wall of text with 20+ sections, many of which are generic boilerplate. References to 'references/audit-reference.md' and 'references/' directory exist but no bundle files are provided to verify. The content that should be inline (Supported Conferences, Parameters) is mixed with content that should be removed or separated (Security Checklist, Risk Assessment, Lifecycle Status). Cross-references like 'See ## Prerequisites above' point to sections that appear BELOW, creating confusion. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 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
73f6514
- 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.