grant-budget-justification

Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.

Quality

45%

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/grant-budget-justification/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%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 has a real executable script and clearly signaled references, but the body is bloated with redundant boilerplate sections and, critically, documents parameters that do not match the bundled script. Workflow guidance is present but generic and scattered across overlapping sections rather than tightly integrated.

Suggestions

Fix the Parameters table to match the actual script arguments (--personnel/--equipment/--output/--demo) or update the script to match the documented interface — the current mismatch is actively misleading.

Consolidate the redundant scope/input/output/error sections (When to Use, When Not to Use, Required Inputs, Input Validation, Output Requirements, Output Contract, Error Handling, Failure Handling) into one or two sections to cut substantial padding.

Replace the abstract Workflow steps with a concrete sequence tied to the real commands (compile-check -> run script with personnel/equipment JSON -> verify output), and inline a copy-pasteable executable example with real input.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose with many padded/boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) and redundant overlapping sections (When to Use / When Not to Use / Required Inputs / Input Validation / Output Requirements / Output Contract / Error Handling / Failure Handling all restate the same stop-and-ask guidance), and 'When to Use' even duplicates the description awkwardly ('Use this skill when the task needs Use grant budget justification...').	2 / 5
Actionability	There are executable commands (`python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`, `python scripts/main.py --help`) and a real bundled script, but the Parameters table documents `--input/--justification-type/--agency/--format` which do not match the script's actual arguments (`--personnel/--equipment/--output/--demo`), and the Example is non-executable prose — concrete guidance present but with inaccurate key details.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step Workflow is sequenced with some checkpoints (stop early on unsupported scope, fallback path on failure), but the steps are abstract and validation is scattered across separate sections (User Checkpoints, Quick Validation) rather than integrated into the workflow sequence, fitting 'Steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	There is a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ([references/audit-reference.md]) and a real scripts/main.py, but the SKILL.md itself is a heavy monolithic doc with much content (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Parameters, Evaluation Criteria) inlined that could be split out, and the reference file partly duplicates body content — 'Some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline'.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

48%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 identifies a clear niche but is weak on concrete capabilities — it frames the skill as a trigger ('Use grant budget justification for...') rather than stating what it does. It reads as a when-clause with a circular what, leaving the actual action unspecified.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete verb phrase stating what the skill does, e.g. 'Generates narrative budget justifications for NIH/NSF grant proposals'.

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say — 'grant proposal', 'budget narrative', 'NIH', 'NSF' — instead of process qualities like 'structured execution'.

Combine the what and when explicitly: state the deliverable (narrative justification text) and the triggering context in one sentence.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('grant budget justification') but lists no concrete actions — 'structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' are process qualities, not capabilities, matching the score-2 anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'.	2 / 5
Completeness	A 'when' is present ('for academic writing workflows that need...') but the 'what' is weak and circular ('Use grant budget justification') — it never states a concrete action the skill performs, so it does not reach the 'both what and when' clarity of score 4.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'grant budget justification' and 'academic writing' are reasonably natural terms, but common variations users would say ('grant proposal', 'NIH/NSF', 'budget narrative') are absent and the rest are process qualities rather than triggers, fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'grant budget justification' is a fairly specific niche with minimal conflict risk; only minor overlap with broader academic-writing skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than the fully distinct triggers of score 5.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 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/grant-budget-justification/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 9 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.