cover-letter-generator

Generates a journal-ready cover letter from manuscript metadata, highlights, and journal-fit notes. Use when preparing an academic submission package and you need editor-facing language that clearly states novelty, relevance, declarations, and corresponding-author details.

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

77%

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

A thorough, actionable instruction-only skill with a clear sequenced workflow and concrete output contract. Its main weaknesses are redundancy across the missing-input/error/validation sections and two bundle references that point to files which are not actually present.

Suggestions

Create the referenced `assets/cover_letter_template.md` and `references/guide.md` (or remove the references) so the signaled one-level-deep pointers resolve to real files.

Merge the overlapping "Missing-Input Recovery", "Error Handling", and "Input Validation" sections into a single concise handling block to remove triplicated guidance.

Reconcile the 9-item Output Contract with the 5-step Drafting Workflow so the paragraph structure and the drafting steps are presented once rather than restated.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is ~180 lines for a single-task skill with notable redundancy: "Missing-Input Recovery", "Error Handling", and "Input Validation" restate the same stop-on-missing-input / out-of-scope guidance, and the 9-item Output Contract overlaps the 5-step Drafting Workflow. It avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Concrete and specific: a numbered 9-paragraph Output Contract, explicit formatting rules, a Journal-Specific Declaration Matrix with per-journal-type logic, and a copy-paste Missing-Input template. Per the rubric's instruction-only guidance, the absence of code is not penalized because the direction is actionable.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Drafting Workflow is a clearly sequenced 5-step process with an explicit validation checkpoint in step 1 ("stop before drafting a 'journal-ready' letter") and a closing Quality Checklist that verifies the output before returning.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized, but the body references `assets/cover_letter_template.md` and `references/guide.md` whose directories do not exist in the bundle — the signaled references are broken — and content that could live in those files (the paragraph skeleton, the preflight checklist) is inlined instead.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A well-crafted description that follows the action-statement-plus-"Use when" pattern, uses third person, and is specific about both capability and trigger context. It is distinguishable from adjacent academic-writing skills and avoids vague fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Generates a journal-ready cover letter from manuscript metadata, highlights, and journal-fit notes" names a concrete action plus the specific inputs it transforms, and the trailing clause enumerates concrete letter contents (novelty, relevance, declarations, corresponding-author details).	3 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly answers both what ("Generates a journal-ready cover letter from...") and when ("Use when preparing an academic submission package and you need editor-facing language..."), with an explicit trigger clause.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present — "cover letter", "academic submission package", "journal" — alongside "Use when preparing an academic submission package", giving good coverage of likely trigger phrasing.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is narrow and clearly bounded — editor-facing journal cover letters — and the skill body explicitly excludes peer-review responses, rebuttal letters, and grant cover pages, making wrong-skill activation unlikely.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 2 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 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.