conference-abstract-adaptor
Adapt abstracts to meet specific conference word limits and formats
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:aipoch/medical-research-skills --skill conference-abstract-adaptorOverall
score
61%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
33%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 adaptation) but is too brief and lacks explicit trigger guidance. It needs a 'Use when...' clause and more concrete action verbs to help Claude distinguish this skill from general writing or editing skills.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'conference submission', 'abstract too long', 'word count', 'CFP requirements', or 'submission guidelines'
Expand concrete actions beyond 'adapt' to include specific capabilities like 'shorten abstracts', 'restructure content', 'reformat for submission requirements', 'check word/character counts'
Include common variations of trigger terms such as 'paper abstract', 'submission', 'character limit', 'academic conference', '.docx'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (abstracts, conferences) and one action (adapt), but lacks comprehensive concrete actions like 'trim content', 'restructure sections', 'reformat citations', or 'adjust formatting'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (adapt abstracts) 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' that users might say, but missing common variations like 'submission', 'paper abstract', 'character limit', 'shorten', or 'CFP'. | 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 more explicit triggers. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides good actionable guidance with executable commands and clear conference specifications, but is bloated with boilerplate sections (risk assessment, security checklist, evaluation criteria, lifecycle status) that consume tokens without aiding Claude's task execution. The core functionality is clear, but lacks guidance on handling edge cases like abstracts that exceed word limits.
Suggestions
Remove or drastically reduce boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't help Claude execute the task
Add a brief workflow for handling abstracts that exceed word limits (e.g., 'If over limit: identify verbose phrases, remove redundant content, re-run validation')
Consider moving the detailed conference table to a separate reference file if more conferences are added
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes substantial boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that add little value for Claude's task execution. The core usage information is reasonably concise, but the document is padded with template content. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable bash commands with clear parameter syntax, a complete parameter table, and concrete examples showing different use cases. The conference format table gives specific, actionable constraints. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a simple single-command tool, but the skill lacks guidance on what to do if word count verification fails or if the abstract doesn't fit the required format. No feedback loop for iterating on abstracts that exceed limits. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but includes too much inline content that doesn't aid task execution (risk assessment, security checklist, lifecycle status). No references to external files for detailed information. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
91%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 | |
- 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.