discussion-section-architect
Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports. Use when writing a discussion section, interpreting research results, connecting findings to existing literature, addressing study limitations, synthesizing conclusions, or drafting any part of an academic discussion. Helps researchers organize arguments, contextualize data, and produce clear, publication-ready discussion prose.
73
Quality
67%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/discussion-section-architect/SKILL.mdQuality
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 a well-crafted skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides specific concrete actions, uses natural academic terminology that researchers would actually say, includes an explicit 'Use when...' clause with comprehensive trigger scenarios, and carves out a distinct niche focused on discussion sections specifically. The description uses proper third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Structures and writes discussion sections', 'interpreting research results', 'connecting findings to existing literature', 'addressing study limitations', 'synthesizing conclusions', 'organize arguments', 'contextualize data', 'produce clear, publication-ready discussion prose'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers') AND when with explicit 'Use when...' clause covering multiple trigger scenarios (writing discussion sections, interpreting results, connecting to literature, addressing limitations, synthesizing conclusions). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'discussion section', 'academic papers', 'research reports', 'research results', 'findings', 'literature', 'study limitations', 'conclusions', 'publication-ready'. Good coverage of terms researchers would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on academic discussion sections with distinct triggers like 'discussion section', 'study limitations', 'existing literature'. Unlikely to conflict with general writing skills or other academic writing skills focused on different sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill suffers from severe verbosity and structural confusion, mixing generic skill template boilerplate with actual discussion-writing guidance. The core content about writing discussion sections (interpretation, literature connection, limitations, Draft→Revise loop) is useful and actionable, but it's buried in repetitive sections and unclear script references that don't connect to the writing task. The skill would be significantly improved by removing the generic boilerplate and focusing on the academic writing guidance.
Suggestions
Remove the redundant 'When to Use' section that repeats the description verbatim, and consolidate the two workflow sections into one clear process
Either remove the scripts/main.py references entirely (if this is a guidance-only skill) or explain what the script actually does and how it relates to discussion writing
Delete the generic boilerplate sections (Implementation Details, Output Requirements, Input Validation, Response Template) that don't add discussion-writing-specific value
Move the detailed examples and checklist to the referenced files and keep SKILL.md as a concise overview with the core structure and Draft→Revise loop
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with significant redundancy. The 'When to Use' section repeats the full description verbatim. Multiple sections repeat the same information (workflow appears twice, references mentioned multiple times). Contains boilerplate that doesn't add value like 'See ## Workflow above for related details' followed by restating the workflow. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides some concrete guidance with example prompts and outputs for discussion writing, and includes a useful checklist. However, the script references (scripts/main.py) are generic placeholders with no actual implementation details, and the 'python scripts/main.py --help' commands are not meaningful without knowing what the script does. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Draft → Revise Loop' provides a clear iterative workflow with a validation checklist, which is good. However, there are two competing workflow sections (generic 5-step workflow and the discussion-specific structure), creating confusion about which to follow. The relationship between the script execution and the writing guidance is unclear. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References external files (references/guide.md, references/examples/, references/audit-reference.md) appropriately, but the main document is bloated with redundant sections that should be consolidated. The structure mixes generic skill boilerplate with domain-specific content in a confusing way. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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.