experiment-detail-comparator

Compare experimental method details between two Zotero PDF papers, identify protocol differences (ratios, dosages, timing, conditions), search supporting literature to explain why they differ, and generate an HTML report. Use when you need a parameter-level comparison of two methods and evidence-backed reasons for discrepancies.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Other/experiment-detail-comparator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 is well-structured with concrete, mostly executable guidance and a clear sequenced workflow backed by real bundle scripts. It is held back by generic boilerplate padding, a missing referenced entry-point script, and absent validation checkpoints within the multi-step workflow.

Suggestions

Remove the generic template sections (Required Inputs, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist) or replace them with skill-specific content; consolidate the duplicate `compare_methods.py --help` validation blocks into one.

Provide the missing `run_comparison.py` entry-point script referenced in 'Example Usage', or rewrite that section to use the existing script-by-script workflow as the primary path.

Insert explicit validation checkpoints between workflow steps (e.g., verify the PDF→Markdown conversion produced non-empty output before extraction; confirm extracted JSON has required fields before comparison) to satisfy the batch-operation feedback-loop requirement.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core (Key Features, Dependencies, manual workflow, Implementation Details) is reasonably efficient, but roughly 60 lines of generic template boilerplate ('Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Deterministic Output Rules', 'Completion Checklist') add padding, and the 'Validation Shortcut'/'Quick Validation' sections redundantly repeat the same `compare_methods.py --help` command.	3 / 5
Actionability	The seven-step manual workflow gives concrete, copy-paste-ready bash/python commands backed by real scripts in the bundle, and the Zotero MCP snippet is executable; the main gap is that the 'recommended' end-to-end path invokes `run_comparison.py`, which is not present in the bundle.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear numbered seven-step sequence is present, but there are no validate→fix→retry checkpoints between steps for this batch/multi-script operation, so the workflow-clarity cap for batch operations without validation applies.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body references real one-level-deep scripts/ paths (compare_methods.py, extract_method_section.py, etc.) that exist in the bundle, with clear signaling; minor gaps come from inlined bulk detail (the extraction schema and comparison logic) that could live in separate reference files.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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 specific, third-person, and explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it with concrete trigger language. It is well-distinguished from other skills and avoids vague fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions in third person — 'Compare experimental method details', 'identify protocol differences (ratios, dosages, timing, conditions)', 'search supporting literature to explain why they differ', 'generate an HTML report' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.	5 / 5
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does (compare method details, identify differences, search literature, generate report) and gives an explicit 'Use when you need a parameter-level comparison of two methods and evidence-backed reasons for discrepancies' trigger, answering both what and when.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural terms like 'parameter-level comparison', 'protocol differences', 'ratios, dosages, timing, conditions', but the trigger phrasing is fairly technical and lacks common synonyms/extensions a lay user might say, so it falls just below comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche — comparing two Zotero PDF papers' experimental protocols with literature-backed rationale — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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/experiment-detail-comparator/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 8 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.