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.
48
52%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/faq-generator/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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-structured skill description with a clear 'what' and explicit 'when' trigger clause. It occupies a distinct niche and includes good natural trigger terms. The main weakness is that the specificity of capabilities could be stronger by listing more concrete actions beyond FAQ generation.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Generates FAQ lists, creates plain-language summaries, and produces patient-friendly Q&A documents from complex medical policies or protocols.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (medical policies/protocols) and one specific action (generates FAQ lists), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond FAQ generation. 'Patient education materials' and 'simplified explanations' hint at broader capabilities but aren't described as concrete actions the skill performs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (generates FAQ lists from complex medical policies or protocols) and 'when' (explicit trigger clause specifying when user provides medical documents and requests FAQ generation, patient education materials, or simplified explanations). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Good coverage of natural terms users would say: 'medical documents', 'policies', 'protocols', 'FAQ generation', 'patient education materials', 'simplified explanations'. These are terms a user would naturally use when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining medical domain with FAQ generation. The combination of 'medical policies/protocols' and 'FAQ generation' creates a clear, specific trigger that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
14%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is heavily padded with generic boilerplate that could apply to any skill, with very little content specific to FAQ generation from medical documents. The useful parts (parameters table, output schema, features list) are buried among repetitive, self-referential, and generic sections. The skill would benefit enormously from being stripped down to its core domain-specific content and adding a concrete input/output example showing medical text being transformed into FAQs.
Suggestions
Remove all generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Response Template, Output Requirements, Input Validation) and keep only content specific to medical FAQ generation.
Add a concrete example showing a snippet of medical policy text as input and the corresponding generated FAQ output in the specified JSON format.
Replace the generic workflow with medical-FAQ-specific steps: e.g., identify key policy topics, extract patient-relevant questions, simplify medical terminology for target audience, validate answer accuracy against source.
Eliminate duplicate/self-referential content — the skill description appears 3 times and 'See above' references point to sections that don't add value.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. The description is copy-pasted multiple times (in 'When to Use', 'Key Features'). Sections like 'Risk Assessment', 'Security Checklist', 'Lifecycle Status', 'Response Template', and 'Output Requirements' are boilerplate that add no domain-specific value. Self-referential lines like 'See `## Features` above for related details' and 'See `## Workflow` above for related details' are pointless. Much of this content explains things Claude already knows (error handling philosophy, input validation philosophy). | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The parameters table, output JSON schema, and CLI commands are concrete and useful. However, the workflow steps are generic and abstract ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope') rather than specific to FAQ generation from medical documents. No actual example of input medical text → generated FAQ output is provided. The 'Example Usage' section shows how to run the script but not how to actually generate FAQs. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow section is entirely generic boilerplate ('Confirm the user objective, required inputs...') with no medical-FAQ-specific steps. There are no validation checkpoints specific to the task (e.g., verifying medical accuracy, checking audience appropriateness). The 'Example run plan' is slightly better but still vague. No feedback loops for verifying FAQ quality or medical accuracy. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to 'references/' directory and 'scripts/main.py' exist but no bundle files are provided, making these dead references. Internal cross-references ('See `## Features` above') are circular and unhelpful. The document is a monolithic wall of boilerplate sections with poor organization — the actual domain-specific content (Features, Parameters, Output Format) is buried among generic sections. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 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
d3c2c0f
- 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.