contradictory-findings-resolver

Explains why studies on the same biomedical topic reach different or opposing conclusions by auditing differences in population, endpoint definition, sample source, assay or platform, study design, statistical model, adjustment strategy, validation chain, and bias control. It separates true contradiction from apparent contradiction caused by framing or methods. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, trial identifiers, dataset details, platform details, study features, or conflict explanations that are not supported by the input.

Quality

76%

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 ./awesome-med-research-skills/Evidence Insight/contradictory-findings-resolver/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

77%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 content is a well-structured, instruction-only analysis skill with a clear ordered workflow, strong progressive disclosure via real one-level reference modules, and concrete actionable guidance. Its chief weakness is redundancy, with the same rules restated across multiple sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated prohibitions (no fabrication, no forced winner, separate true vs apparent) into a single Hard Rules section and remove their restatement in 'What This Skill Should Not Do' and 'Quality Standard'.

Add one short worked example showing a sample input and the corresponding resolved output to lift actionability toward fully executable.

Trim the duplicated 'This skill should not' lists (lines 99-104 and 285-290) since they overlap almost entirely.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but the same prohibitions (no fabrication, no forced winner, separate true vs apparent) are restated across the Core Function, Hard Rules, 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and Quality Standard sections, adding noticeable redundancy.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific instruction-only guidance via an ordered 8-step procedure with explicit per-step checklists, classification categories, and resolution routes; a worked example of a resolved conflict output would close the minor gap to fully actionable.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8 steps are explicitly sequenced 'always run in order', with a gate at Step 1 ('Do not proceed until the conflict point is explicit') and a self-critical final checklist at Step 8; this is an analysis skill with no destructive/batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md is a clear overview pointing to 7 real, one-level-deep reference files, each signaled with a path and a 'Use when...' purpose; the reference files contain no nested references, so navigation is easy and appropriately split.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 is specific and distinctive, clearly communicating a narrow biomedical evidence-conflict niche with concrete audit capabilities. Its main weakness is the missing explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g., 'Use when two or more biomedical studies on the same topic appear to disagree or reach contradictory conclusions.'

Include more natural user phrasings such as 'conflicting studies', 'studies disagree', or 'contradictory findings' alongside the formal wording.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete audit actions ('population, endpoint definition, sample source, assay or platform, study design, statistical model, adjustment strategy, validation chain, and bias control') plus 'separates true contradiction from apparent contradiction caused by framing or methods', giving comprehensive coverage of specific capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' (explains why studies disagree via methodological auditing) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the judging guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant terms like 'different or opposing conclusions' and 'contradiction' that users might say, but misses common natural variations such as 'disagree', 'conflicting studies', or 'conflicting results'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear, narrow niche (biomedical evidence-conflict analysis) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: awesome-med-research-skills/Evidence Insight/contradictory-findings-resolver/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 4 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.