grant-budget-justification

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

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/grant-budget-justification/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body has a clear, well-sequenced workflow with validation and fallback steps, and it points to real one-level-deep bundle files. However, it is padded with generic boilerplate and redundant sections, and the documented parameters do not match the bundled script's actual CLI, which undermines actionability.

Suggestions

Reconcile the Parameters table with the actual script CLI (--personnel, --equipment, --demo, --output) so documented flags are executable, or update the script to match the documented interface.

Remove or relocate generic boilerplate (Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Output Contract, Risk Assessment) into the reference file or drop it to reduce redundancy and token cost.

Fix the duplicated description on line 32 ('Use this skill when the task needs Use grant budget justification...') and consolidate overlapping sections (Error Handling/Failure Handling, Output Requirements/Output Contract).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~190-line body contains substantial generic boilerplate (Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Output Contract, Risk Assessment) and redundant overlapping sections (Error Handling/Failure Handling, Output Requirements/Output Contract, Quick Check/Quick Validation), and line 32 awkwardly duplicates the description.	2 / 3
Actionability	Concrete audit commands and a parameters table are provided, but the documented Parameters (--input, --justification-type, --agency, --format) do not match the actual script CLI (--personnel, --equipment, --demo, --output), so the guidance is not reliably copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with an early-stop validation gate (step 2) and an explicit fallback path (step 5), plus dedicated validation commands and error-handling guidance providing feedback loops for recovery.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Real, one-level-deep references (audit-reference.md, scripts/main.py) are clearly signaled, but large amounts of generic boilerplate that belongs in a reference file remain inline in SKILL.md, and only a single supplementary reference exists.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 specific domain and relevant trigger terms but stops short of listing concrete actions or providing an explicit 'Use when...' clause, leaving the 'when' guidance only implied. It is reasonably distinct but could overlap with broader academic-writing skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete trigger scenarios (e.g., 'Use when drafting NIH/NSF budget narratives or justifying personnel, equipment, or travel costs in a grant proposal').

Replace abstract process qualities with concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., 'Generate narrative justifications for personnel, equipment, supplies, and travel budget items').

Include common user-facing terms like 'budget narrative', 'NIH/NSF budget', and 'cost justification' to improve trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('grant budget justification', 'academic writing workflows') but relies on abstract process qualities ('structured execution, explicit assumptions, clear output boundaries') rather than listing concrete actions like generating or drafting justifications.	2 / 3
Completeness	States what the skill does but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so the 'when' guidance is only implied rather than explicitly stated, capping completeness at 2 per the rubric guideline.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('grant budget justification', 'academic writing') but omits common variations a user might say such as 'NIH/NSF budget', 'budget narrative', or 'justification text'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The grant-budget niche is fairly distinct, but the broad phrase 'academic writing workflows' could overlap with general academic-writing skills, so it is not a clear unconflicted niche.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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
Commit: 7cc5680

Reviewed: 3 days 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.