expert-interview-topics

Generates professional interview titles and questions based on expert background and topic. Provides a structured workflow for interview preparation.

Quality

51%

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/expert-interview-topics/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 gives genuinely actionable, executable guidance anchored by real scripts, but it is padded with substantial generic boilerplate and redundant sections that dilute token efficiency and workflow clarity. Trimming the templated sections would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Cut the duplicated generic sections (Recommended Workflow vs. Example run plan; Quick Validation vs. Validation Shortcut vs. Validation and Safety Rules) and keep one concrete, skill-specific workflow tied to the 3-step prompt flow.

Replace abstract validation boilerplate with a concrete checkpoint after each prompt step (e.g. confirm {generated_titles} was substituted before running the selection prompt).

Fix the "See ## Usage above" reference in Example Usage and remove the redundant top-half template block that restates the description verbatim.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose: large templated boilerplate sections (When to Use, Key Features, Implementation Details, Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist) repeat generic guidance not specific to this skill, and "## Example Usage" says "See ## Usage above" while Usage appears later.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides a concrete, executable command with all arguments documented (`python scripts/main.py --topic … --background … [--file …]`) plus a worked example, and the referenced scripts are real and runnable; minor gaps remain around the placeholder-substitution handoff between steps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The core 3-step prompt flow (generate titles → select title → generate questions) is sequenced with placeholders explained in the Output section, but validation/checkpoints are generic boilerplate rather than concrete checks tied to each step.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle references (`scripts/main.py`, `scripts/validate_skill.py`) are real and one level deep, but the body has notable redundancy (two near-duplicate workflow lists, duplicate validation sections) and a navigation flaw ("See ## Usage above" points to a section below), so organization could be tighter.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 states what the skill does and targets a distinct niche, but it lacks an explicit "Use when…" trigger clause and misses common synonym keywords. It sits at a competent-but-not-exemplary level across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when…" clause naming concrete trigger phrases, e.g. "Use when preparing expert interview questions, drafting interview titles, or planning a structured expert interview."

Broaden trigger coverage with natural synonyms users might say ("expert interview", "interview script", "questions for an interview", "interview prep").

Replace the abstract "structured workflow for interview preparation" with a more concrete capability verb to lift specificity from 1-2 actions toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Generates professional interview titles and questions" names the domain plus two concrete actions (title generation, question generation), but coverage is not comprehensive and the "structured workflow" phrase is abstract.	3 / 5
Completeness	The "what" is clear (generate titles and questions from expert background and topic), but there is no explicit "Use when…" trigger clause; "Provides a structured workflow for interview preparation" only weakly implies when to use it, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"interview titles", "interview questions", and "interview preparation" are reasonably natural user phrases, but common synonyms/variants (e.g. "expert interview", "interview script", "questions for an interview") are missing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"expert background and topic" plus "interview titles and questions" carves a fairly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk, though weak trigger guidance leaves minor overlap with general interview-prep skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/expert-interview-topics/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.