docx-feedback-tracker

Automatically detect DOCX track-changes history, version rounds, and author feedback to generate a Markdown modification explanation file when you run it on one or more DOCX versions.

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/Other/docx-feedback-tracker/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 body has strong, well-structured skill-specific content and real reference files, but is weighed down by generic boilerplate, a workflow section that does not describe the skill's actual process, and a referenced entry script that is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate sections (When Not to Use, Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Quick Validation) or replace them with skill-specific guidance; they restate what Claude already knows.

Replace the generic 'Recommended Workflow' with the real sequenced technical process (group by topic -> order versions as v0/vN/timestamp -> parse w:ins/w:del and comments -> diff fallback -> merge rounds into one Markdown) with a validation checkpoint before writing output.

Fix the broken 'script/docx_feedback_tracker.py' reference (add the script to the bundle or correct the path) and use cross-platform forward slashes in example paths.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Roughly 40% of the body is generic template boilerplate ('When Not to Use', 'Required Inputs', 'Recommended Workflow', 'Output Contract', 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Quick Validation' that states no validation is needed) explaining concepts Claude already knows, making it noticeably padded beyond the efficient skill-specific sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready commands covering single-file, multi-version, and batch cases, but the referenced entry script 'script/docx_feedback_tracker.py' is absent from the bundle and the example path uses Windows backslashes, leaving minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The actual technical workflow is described in 'Implementation Details' rather than sequenced with validation checkpoints, the 'Recommended Workflow' is generic boilerplate, and as a batch skill it lacks validation steps, capping this dimension at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized sections with clearly signaled one-level-deep references that exist in the bundle ('references/docx-tracked-changes.md', 'assets/change-log-template.md'); minor gaps from the missing 'script/docx_feedback_tracker.py' reference and inlined boilerplate that should be trimmed.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 clearly conveys what the skill does and operates in a distinct niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and omits several natural synonyms and file extensions users would say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when you receive a DOCX with Track Changes or comments, or when you need a change log across DOCX versions (e.g. -v1, -v2).'

Broaden trigger terms to include natural synonyms and extensions: 'Word', '.docx', 'comments', 'redline', 'change log'.

Tighten 'author feedback' to a more natural phrase such as 'reviewer comments' or 'tracked reviewer edits'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the DOCX domain and several concrete actions ('detect DOCX track-changes history, version rounds, and author feedback', 'generate a Markdown modification explanation file'), with only minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but the 'when' is only weakly implied via 'when you run it on one or more DOCX versions' rather than an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the guidelines.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say ('DOCX', 'track-changes', 'versions') but misses common synonyms and extensions like 'Word', '.docx', 'comments', and 'redline'; coverage is good but not comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (DOCX track-changes / version-round reconstruction) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk versus generic document skills, though minor overlap with general DOCX editing remains.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/Other/docx-feedback-tracker/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 5 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.