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 reasonably specific niche—adapting conference abstracts—but is too terse to be effective for skill selection. It lacks an explicit 'Use when...' clause, misses common user trigger terms, and doesn't enumerate the concrete actions the skill performs beyond a high-level summary.

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 or call for papers.'

List more concrete actions such as 'trims content to meet word or character limits, restructures sections to match required formats, checks compliance with submission guidelines.'

Include additional natural trigger terms users might say, such as 'submission', 'call for papers', 'shorten abstract', 'character limit', 'paper summary', or 'academic conference'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (abstracts, conference submissions) and a couple of actions (adapt to word limits and formats), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like trimming, restructuring, reformatting sections, or checking compliance.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what the skill does (adapt abstracts to word limits and formats) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' itself is also fairly thin, bringing it closer to 1.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'abstracts', 'conference', 'word limits', and 'formats', but misses common variations users might say such as 'submission', 'paper abstract', 'character limit', 'shorten abstract', 'rewrite for conference', or specific conference names.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The combination of 'abstracts' and 'conference word limits' is fairly specific, but could overlap with general writing/editing skills or academic writing skills without clearer trigger boundaries.	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 contains useful task-specific information (supported conferences with word limits, CLI parameters, usage examples) but buries it under extensive generic boilerplate that adds no value. The workflow is abstract rather than specific to abstract adaptation, and there are no validation steps for checking word count compliance or section structure. The skill would benefit enormously from removing ~60% of its content and focusing on the conference-specific adaptation logic.

Suggestions

Remove all generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements, Input Validation) that don't contain task-specific information — they waste tokens on things Claude already knows.

Add a concrete workflow specific to abstract adaptation: e.g., '1. Parse input abstract → 2. Identify target conference constraints → 3. Restructure into required sections → 4. Verify word/char count meets limit → 5. Output with compliance report'.

Add a concrete example showing an input abstract snippet and the expected adapted output for a specific conference, demonstrating the actual transformation.

Consolidate the duplicated sections (there are three separate places discussing workflow/implementation/example usage that say similar things) into a single clear workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose and padded with boilerplate sections that add no value. Sections like 'Risk Assessment', 'Security Checklist', 'Lifecycle Status', 'Evaluation Criteria', 'Response Template', and 'Output Requirements' are generic filler. Multiple self-referential links ('See ## Prerequisites above') point to sections that contain minimal content. The actual task-specific information (supported conferences table, parameters, usage) could be conveyed in ~30% of the current length.	1 / 3
Actionability	The Parameters table, Usage examples, and Supported Conferences table provide concrete, executable guidance. However, the skill relies entirely on an external `scripts/main.py` without showing any of its logic or how the abstract adaptation actually works. The workflow steps are generic ('Confirm the user objective') rather than specific to abstract adaptation. The actual CLI commands are copy-paste ready, which is good.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is a numbered workflow, but it is entirely generic and not specific to abstract adaptation. There's no validation checkpoint for verifying word count compliance or section structure after adaptation. The 'Example run plan' is slightly more concrete but still lacks explicit validation steps like 'verify the output meets the target word limit' or 'check that all required sections are present'.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References to `references/audit-reference.md` and `scripts/main.py` exist, providing some structure. However, the SKILL.md itself is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that are boilerplate and could be removed entirely rather than split into separate files. The content that matters (conferences table, parameters, usage) is buried among generic sections.	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: 0b96148

Reviewed: 3 days 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.