iacuc-protocol-drafter
Draft IACUC protocol applications with focus on the 3Rs principles justification.
32
27%
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/iacuc-protocol-drafter/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%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 and distinctive niche (IACUC protocol drafting with 3Rs principles) but is too terse to be fully effective. It lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and could benefit from listing more concrete actions and natural keyword variations that users might employ when seeking this skill.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'animal use protocol', 'animal research approval', 'IACUC submission', 'animal ethics application'.
Expand the list of concrete actions, e.g., 'Draft IACUC protocol applications, justify Replacement/Reduction/Refinement (3Rs), describe animal procedures, and outline humane endpoints.'
Include common keyword variations such as 'animal use protocol', 'animal ethics', 'Replacement Reduction Refinement', 'laboratory animal', and 'institutional animal care' to improve trigger term coverage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (IACUC protocol applications) and one specific action (draft with 3Rs principles justification), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like reviewing, editing, or submitting protocols. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (drafts IACUC protocol applications with 3Rs focus) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 2, and the 'what' is also only moderately detailed, warranting a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant terms like 'IACUC', 'protocol applications', and '3Rs principles' which are domain-appropriate, but misses common variations users might say such as 'animal use protocol', 'animal ethics', 'Replacement Reduction Refinement', or 'animal research approval'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | IACUC protocol applications with 3Rs principles is a very specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. The domain is narrow and well-defined enough to be clearly distinguishable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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 scaffolding (security checklists, risk assessments, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria, response templates) that provides no IACUC-specific value and consumes significant token budget. The actual domain-relevant content—the input JSON schema and 3Rs template descriptions—is useful but buried. The skill lacks example output showing what a generated protocol looks like, has contradictory dependency requirements (Python 3.10+ vs 3.8+), and contains circular self-references between sections.
Suggestions
Remove all generic boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements) and focus on IACUC-specific guidance—what makes a good 3Rs justification, common pitfalls, regulatory requirements.
Add a concrete example output showing a complete or partial generated 3Rs justification section so Claude knows what quality output looks like.
Consolidate the three competing workflow/usage sections into a single clear workflow with IACUC-specific validation steps (e.g., verify each R is addressed, check pain category alignment with procedures, validate species-specific refinement measures).
Resolve contradictions (Python 3.10+ vs 3.8+, 'No additional dependencies' vs 'not explicitly version-pinned') and remove circular cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Contains multiple redundant sections (e.g., 'See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above', 'See ## Workflow above' cross-references to itself), duplicate information (Python version listed as both 3.10+ and 3.8+), boilerplate security checklists, risk assessments, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria, and response templates that add no IACUC-specific value. Much of the content is generic skill scaffolding that wastes tokens. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The input JSON schema is concrete and well-defined, and the CLI parameters are clearly documented. However, there's no actual executable code shown for the protocol generation logic, no example output demonstrating what a generated 3Rs justification looks like, and the workflow steps are generic rather than IACUC-specific. The skill relies entirely on an unseen scripts/main.py without showing what it produces. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There are multiple competing workflow sections with conflicting levels of detail. The main 'Workflow' section is entirely generic (confirm objective, validate request, use packaged script, return result) with no IACUC-specific steps. There are no validation checkpoints for the generated protocol content, no feedback loop for reviewing 3Rs justification quality, and no verification that the output meets IACUC standards. The 'Example Usage' section has a different workflow than the 'Workflow' section. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The document is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that contain generic boilerplate rather than meaningful content. It references 'references/audit-reference.md' and 'scripts/main.py' but no bundle files are provided. Multiple sections reference each other circularly ('See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above'). The content that should be the core focus (3Rs principles, IACUC protocol structure) is buried among security checklists, risk assessments, and lifecycle metadata. | 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
73f6514
- 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.