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.
84
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is an excellent skill description that clearly defines a specific academic writing task, includes natural trigger terms researchers would use, and explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it. The niche is well-defined and unlikely to conflict with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: generates a cover letter from manuscript metadata/highlights/journal-fit notes, and specifies the output includes novelty, relevance, declarations, and corresponding-author details. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Generates a journal-ready cover letter from manuscript metadata, highlights, and journal-fit notes') and when ('Use when preparing an academic submission package and you need editor-facing language...'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'cover letter', 'manuscript', 'journal', 'academic submission', 'editor', 'novelty', 'corresponding-author', 'declarations'. These are terms researchers naturally use when preparing submissions. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — academic journal cover letters are a very specific task unlikely to overlap with other skills. The combination of 'journal-ready', 'manuscript metadata', 'editor-facing language', and 'academic submission package' creates a clear, unique trigger profile. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill with strong workflow clarity and good guardrails (missing-input recovery, quality checklist, tone constraints). Its main weaknesses are the lack of a concrete output example showing what a finished cover letter looks like, and moderate verbosity in sections that could be more concise. The external file references exist but are poorly signaled and the content balance between the main file and referenced files could be improved.
Suggestions
Add a concrete example of a completed cover letter (even abbreviated) showing the expected output format with realistic placeholder content, to improve actionability.
Move the 'Journal-Specific Declaration Matrix' and detailed workflow sub-steps to a referenced file (e.g., WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md), keeping the main SKILL.md as a leaner overview with clear navigation links.
Trim the 'When to Use' and 'When Not to Use' sections to 1-2 bullet points each, as most of these conditions are inferable by Claude from context.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-structured but includes some unnecessary verbosity. Sections like 'When to Use' and 'When Not to Use' spell out obvious cases Claude could infer. The 'Journal-Specific Declaration Matrix' and 'Deterministic Rules' sections add value but could be tighter. Overall mostly efficient with some room for trimming. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides clear structural guidance and a well-defined output contract, but lacks a concrete example of a completed cover letter or even a partial example showing the expected output format. The workflow steps are instructional rather than executable—there's no template content shown inline, and the referenced assets (assets/cover_letter_template.md, references/guide.md) are external without any preview of their contents. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced with numbered steps, includes explicit validation as step 1 with a defined recovery path for missing inputs, has a quality checklist as a final verification gate, and provides clear stop conditions. The missing-input recovery acts as a feedback loop preventing premature output. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (assets/cover_letter_template.md, references/guide.md) which is good progressive disclosure, but these references are buried near the bottom with minimal signaling. The main SKILL.md itself is fairly long and could benefit from moving the declaration matrix or detailed workflow steps to a separate reference file, keeping the main file as a leaner overview. | 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
8277276
- 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.