faq-generator

Generates FAQ lists from complex medical policies or protocols. Trigger when user provides medical documents, policies, or protocols and requests FAQ generation, patient education materials, or simplified explanations.

Quality

63%

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/faq-generator/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

48%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 skill body is over-long and padded with generic template boilerplate, and its most actionable section (the CLI parameters table) documents flags that the bundled script does not actually implement. Workflow sequencing is the strongest aspect, with clear validation and fallback guidance.

Suggestions

Make the Parameters table match scripts/main.py: either implement argparse --input/--audience/--output/--format in the script, or remove the non-existent flags from the table.

Cut the verbatim description repeat in "When to Use" and the generic boilerplate in "Implementation Details" / "Output Requirements" so each section adds FAQ-specific value Claude doesn't already know.

Consolidate redundant run-check sections ("Quick Check", "Audit-Ready Commands", "Example Usage") into one concise command block to reduce padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably padded: the "When to Use" section repeats the description verbatim, and multiple sections ("Implementation Details", "Key Features", "Output Requirements") are generic template boilerplate unrelated to FAQ generation, earning only minor trimming above the severely-verbose 1.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete commands appear (py_compile, running main.py) and a parameters table is provided, but the documented flags (--input, --audience, --output, --format) do not exist in scripts/main.py, so the guidance is partly inaccurate and not fully executable.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step Workflow has an explicit validation checkpoint (step 2, stop early if out of scope) and a fallback path for failures; this is a non-destructive single-purpose skill so the batch-validation cap does not apply, with only minor abstraction in the step wording.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Real one-level-deep references exist (references/guidelines.md, scripts/main.py) and are signaled by path, but the body is a monolithic wall of inline template text that could be better split or trimmed, fitting the some-structure-but-could-be-better-organized anchor.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

78%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 well-formed: it states a concrete capability, gives explicit trigger conditions with natural synonyms, and is clearly distinct within the medical-document niche. Its main limitation is listing only one core action rather than a fuller set of supported operations.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the medical-policy domain and one concrete action ("Generates FAQ lists from complex medical policies or protocols"), but does not enumerate multiple distinct actions, matching the 1-2-actions anchor rather than the comprehensive coverage of a 4 or 5.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both "what" (Generates FAQ lists from complex medical policies or protocols) and "when" (Trigger when user provides medical documents, policies, or protocols...) with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good coverage of natural terms and synonyms a user would say ("medical documents, policies, or protocols", "FAQ generation, patient education materials, or simplified explanations"), though a few common variants (e.g. "patient handout", "discharge instructions") are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The medical-FAQ niche has distinct triggers and is mostly distinguishable, with only minor overlap risk against general medical-summarization or patient-education writing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/faq-generator/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.