conference-abstract-adaptor

Adapt abstracts to meet specific conference word limits and formats.

Quality

33%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/conference-abstract-adaptor/SKILL.md

Quality

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 specific use case (conference abstract formatting) but is too brief and lacks explicit trigger guidance. It fails to include a 'Use when...' clause, which is critical for skill selection, and doesn't enumerate the specific actions it can perform beyond generic 'adapt' language.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'conference submission', 'abstract too long', 'word count', 'shorten abstract', 'submission requirements'

Expand the capabilities list with specific actions: 'Condense, restructure, and reformat academic abstracts to meet conference submission requirements including word limits, character counts, and formatting guidelines'

Include common file or context triggers like 'academic paper', 'CFP requirements', 'submission deadline'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (abstracts, conference submissions) and one action (adapt to word limits and formats), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like editing, restructuring, trimming, or reformatting.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords like 'abstracts', 'conference', 'word limits', and 'formats', but misses common variations users might say like 'submission', 'paper abstract', 'character limit', 'shorten', or 'academic writing'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Somewhat specific to conference abstracts which is a clear niche, but could overlap with general writing/editing skills or academic writing skills without explicit triggers to differentiate.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

35%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill suffers from severe verbosity with extensive boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that add no value for Claude's execution. The core functionality—adapting abstracts to conference formats—is adequately documented with a useful conference table and CLI parameters, but is buried under unnecessary meta-content. The skill would be far more effective at 20% of its current length.

Suggestions

Remove boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template) that don't help Claude execute the task

Consolidate redundant workflow sections into a single clear sequence with validation step (e.g., verify word count meets limit before returning)

Add a concrete input/output example showing an abstract before and after adaptation for one conference format

Remove self-referential 'See X above' statements and organize content so it flows naturally without internal cross-references

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with excessive boilerplate, redundant sections (multiple 'See X above' references), and unnecessary meta-content like Risk Assessment tables, Security Checklists, and Lifecycle Status that don't help Claude execute the task. The actual actionable content (conference formats, CLI usage) is buried in padding.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete CLI commands and a clear parameter table, but the actual adaptation logic is delegated to an external script without showing what transformations occur. The conference format table is useful but lacks examples of input/output transformations.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multiple workflow sections exist but are redundant and scattered ('Example Usage', 'Workflow', 'Implementation Details' all describe similar steps). The actual workflow is clear (run script with params) but lacks validation checkpoints for verifying the adapted abstract meets requirements before finalizing.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References external files (references/audit-reference.md, scripts/main.py) appropriately, but the main document itself is poorly organized with redundant sections and excessive inline content that should be trimmed rather than split out.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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: 4a48721

Reviewed: about 10 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.