dei-statement-drafter

Draft Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statements for academic applications.

Quality

60%

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 ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/dei-statement-drafter/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 well-structured with executable commands, a real reference file, and a workflow that includes validation and fallback. Its main weakness is verbosity: significant boilerplate and generic sections inflate the body without adding DEI-specific value.

Suggestions

Remove the three 'See ## X above for related details.' placeholder lines and the generic Risk Assessment / Security Checklist / Evaluation Criteria / Lifecycle Status boilerplate, or move them to the reference file.

Add at least one inline example of a drafted DEI statement section or a concrete drafting prompt so the core task is actionable without reading scripts/main.py.

Make the Workflow steps DEI-specific (e.g. confirm template choice, ingest experiences file, generate section drafts) instead of generic 'produce a bounded deliverable' phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose with padded boilerplate ('Structured execution path designed to keep outputs consistent and reviewable', 'Scope-focused workflow aligned to: <description repeated>') and three no-op 'See ## X above for related details' cross-references, plus generic Risk/Security/Evaluation/Lifecycle sections that do not earn their tokens; it is above 1 because some sections (Usage, Parameters, Quick Check) are efficient and useful.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides executable, copy-paste commands ('python -m py_compile scripts/main.py', 'python scripts/main.py --help', 'python scripts/main.py --template faculty --experiences experiences.txt') and a concrete parameter table; it is not a 5 because no example DEI statement output or drafting prompt is shown inline to cover the common cases.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow lists a clear 5-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 2: 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early') and a fallback path (step 5), plus a Quick Check verification command; it is not a 5 because several steps are abstract/generic ('produce a bounded deliverable') rather than DEI-specific with feedback loops.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	References are one level deep and clearly signaled ('[references/audit-reference.md](references/audit-reference.md) - Supported scope, audit commands, and fallback boundaries') and the referenced file exists with matching content; it is not a 5 because the body itself is a long single-file set of sections, some of which (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist) could be split out, leaving minor organization gaps.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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 clear and domain-specific but single-action and lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, capping completeness. It is distinguishable and uses natural terminology, though missing common synonyms like 'DEI'.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when drafting DEI/diversity statements for faculty, postdoc, or grant applications.'

Include common synonyms and file/context terms users say ('DEI statement', 'diversity statement', 'job application', 'grant proposal') to improve trigger coverage.

Name a second concrete action (e.g. 'tailor to faculty, postdoc, or grant templates') to lift specificity from one action to several.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statements for academic applications') and one concrete action ('Draft'), matching the score-3 anchor of domain plus 1-2 actions but not comprehensive; it is not a 2 because 'Draft' is a concrete action rather than minimal/generic, and not a 4 because only a single action is given.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states the 'what' (draft DEI statements) but the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'for academic applications' with no 'Use when...' clause, so per the missing-trigger-clause rule completeness is capped at 3; it is above 2 because a clear 'what' is present.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ('Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statements', 'academic applications'), giving good keyword coverage; it falls short of 5 because common synonyms like 'DEI', 'diversity statement', 'job application', or 'grant proposal' are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The DEI-statement-for-academic-applications niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general academic-writing skills; it is not a 5 because there are no explicit trigger phrases that fully separate it from neighboring skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: scientific-skills/Academic Writing/dei-statement-drafter/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 6 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.