conflict-of-interest-checker
Check for co-authorship conflicts between authors and suggested reviewers
68
52%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.94xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/conflict-of-interest-checker/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
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 identifies a clear, specialized capability in academic publishing workflows but suffers from missing explicit trigger guidance. While the domain is distinctive and unlikely to conflict with other skills, the lack of a 'Use when...' clause and limited trigger term coverage reduces its effectiveness for skill selection.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers like 'Use when reviewing paper submissions, checking reviewer assignments, or when the user mentions conflict of interest, COI, or reviewer selection'
Include common variations of trigger terms such as 'conflict of interest', 'COI', 'paper review', 'manuscript submission', 'peer review'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names a specific domain (co-authorship conflicts) and a concrete action (check), but only describes one action rather than multiple specific capabilities. Uses third person voice correctly. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does (check for co-authorship conflicts) 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 terms like 'co-authorship', 'authors', 'reviewers', and 'conflicts', but missing common variations users might say like 'reviewer suggestions', 'conflict of interest', 'COI check', or 'paper submission'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very specific niche around academic/publication co-authorship conflict checking between authors and reviewers. Unlikely to conflict with other skills due to the specialized domain. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%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 clear CLI usage and examples, but is bloated with template boilerplate that doesn't help Claude execute the task. The core functionality (parameters, usage, output format) is well-documented, but the Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, and Lifecycle sections add noise without actionable value.
Suggestions
Remove or relocate boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't provide actionable guidance for using the tool
Add brief guidance on interpreting results and next steps when conflicts are found (e.g., 'If conflicts detected, suggest alternative reviewers or flag for editorial review')
Include error handling guidance for common issues like missing CSV files or malformed input
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes substantial boilerplate (Risk Assessment table, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that adds little value for Claude's execution. The core functionality is reasonably concise, but ~40% of the content is template filler. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable bash commands with clear parameter documentation. The CSV format example and usage examples are copy-paste ready, and the expected output format is clearly shown. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a single-command tool with clear usage, but lacks validation steps. No guidance on what to do if conflicts are found, how to verify results, or how to handle edge cases like malformed CSV files. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but everything is inline in one file. The boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria) could be removed or moved to separate documentation, cluttering the main skill. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%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
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.