conference-poster-pitch

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

Quality

45%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

50%

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

The body is highly actionable where it counts (concrete executable commands and parameters) but is weighed down by verbose generic boilerplate and a repeated description. Progressive disclosure and workflow clarity are adequate but undermined by inline filler and abstract process steps.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) or move them to a reference file; they add no pitch-specific value.

Stop repeating the frontmatter description verbatim inside 'When to Use' and 'Key Features'.

Tighten the Workflow into concrete pitch-generation steps with an explicit validate->fix->retry checkpoint instead of abstract 'confirm/validate/return' phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The description is repeated verbatim three times, and large generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Output Requirements) pad the body with concepts Claude already knows, matching the verbose/padded anchor.	1 / 3
Actionability	The Usage block gives copy-paste-ready, fully executable commands with real poster titles and durations ('python scripts/main.py --poster-title "CRISPR Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease" --duration 60'), backed by a real script and a concrete Parameters table.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A five-step Workflow with a fallback (step 5) and a Quick Check is present, but the steps are generic process boilerplate and lack a tight validate->fix->retry feedback loop, so checkpoints are implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	There is one clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/audit-reference.md) and a referenced script, but the SKILL.md body itself is bloated with inline generic content that would be better split into separate files.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

40%

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 is abstract and largely circular: it repeats the skill name and tacks on generic process language rather than stating what the skill concretely does or giving natural trigger terms. It has an explicit trigger clause but a weak 'what' statement.

Suggestions

State the concrete capability, e.g. 'Generate 30s/60s/3-minute elevator pitch scripts for academic poster sessions.'

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'poster session', 'elevator pitch', 'academic conference'.

Drop the generic 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' boilerplate that overlaps with other academic-writing skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists no concrete actions ('generate pitches', 'draft scripts'); it only restates the skill name and attaches abstract process descriptors like 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries', matching the vague/abstract anchor.	1 / 3
Completeness	A 'Use ... for academic writing workflows that need ...' trigger gives a when-ish clause, but the what is circular ('Use conference poster pitch') and never states the actual capability, so it does not clearly answer both.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'conference poster pitch' is a relevant keyword a user might say, but common variations like 'poster session', 'elevator pitch', or 'academic conference' are missing, so coverage is partial.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'conference poster pitch' is a distinct niche, but the appended 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' is generic boilerplate that could overlap with many academic-writing skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 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
Commit: 7cc5680

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.