conference-poster-pitch

Use conference poster pitch for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.

Quality

48%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/conference-poster-pitch/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 actionable and well-structured with a working script and clear workflow, but it is bloated with generic process boilerplate and redundant circular references that inflate the token budget without adding skill-specific value.

Suggestions

Remove or relocate generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that are not specific to poster pitches.

Delete the circular 'See ## X above' placeholder lines in Dependencies, Example Usage, and Implementation Details since they point to sections that do not contain the promised detail.

Fix the inaccuracy in the Example run plan that references an in-file 'CONFIG block' which the script does not have.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is padded with generic boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Output Requirements) and circular placeholder references ('See ## Prerequisites above') that add little poster-specific value.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete, copy-paste-runnable commands (py_compile, --help, --poster-title/--duration invocations) backed by a real script and a clear Parameters table, with only minor gaps such as a referenced 'CONFIG block' that does not exist.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with a scope-validation checkpoint (step 2) and an explicit fallback loop (step 5); this is a non-destructive single-purpose skill so no validation cap applies.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A real one-level-deep reference (references/audit-reference.md) is clearly signaled and the body is well sectioned, though a fair amount of inline boilerplate could be moved or trimmed for tighter organization.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

36%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 identifies a plausible niche but leans on abstract process language instead of stating a concrete capability, leaving both the 'what' and the 'when' underspecified. It reads as boilerplate rather than a precise trigger.

Suggestions

State the concrete action up front, e.g. 'Generate elevator pitches for academic poster sessions (30s, 60s, 3-minute).'

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' clause naming natural triggers such as 'poster session', 'elevator pitch', or 'academic poster'.

Drop the generic 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' phrasing that dilutes distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('conference poster pitch', 'academic writing workflows') but offers only abstract qualities ('structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries') rather than concrete actions such as generating elevator pitches.	2 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is vague (it never states the skill generates elevator pitches) and there is only a weak 'Use ... for ...' frame with no explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause, capping completeness well below midpoint.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'conference poster pitch' and 'academic writing' are relevant keywords, but common natural variations users would say ('poster session', 'elevator pitch', 'academic poster') are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'conference poster pitch' is a recognizable niche, but the generic qualifiers about 'academic writing workflows that need structured execution' broaden it enough to overlap with other academic-writing skills.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/conference-poster-pitch/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 3 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.