CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

inclusion-exclusion-criteria-builder

Builds clear, executable, and auditable inclusion and exclusion criteria for biomedical and clinical research protocols. Always use this skill when a user needs to translate a target population into operational screening rules tied to chart fields, time windows, tests, procedures, prior therapies, exclusions, and reviewable edge cases. Focus on protocol-stage precision, ambiguity reduction, auditability, and screening reproducibility rather than generic study design advice.

64

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./awesome-med-research-skills/Protocol Design/inclusion-exclusion-criteria-builder/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

53%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 body is a well-structured, actionable instruction skill with excellent progressive disclosure and a clear gated workflow, weakened mainly by notable redundancy across its rule-listing sections. Consolidating the repeated guidance would meaningfully improve token efficiency without losing clarity.

Suggestions

Merge the overlapping rule lists (Core Function, Hard Rules, What This Skill Should Not Do, Quality Standard) into a single consolidated rules block to remove redundancy and reduce token cost.

Add one concise worked example output (e.g., a short NSCLC cohort eligibility framework) so the abstract Sections A–J structure has a concrete model to follow.

Make the workflow's error-recovery loop explicit (e.g., 'if Section G flags a contradictory criterion, return to Step 3/4 and revise before finalizing') to close the validation feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and free of generic-concept padding, but the same themes (clarify first, don't invent boundaries, don't mix baseline with outcomes, operationalize, flag ambiguity) are restated across Core Function, Decision Logic, Hard Rules, What This Skill Should Not Do, and Quality Standard, which could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, executable guidance: a mandatory Sections A–J output structure, an operationalization table with explicit columns, a clarification-gating checklist, an out-of-scope redirect template, and per-section reference module assignments; it stops short of a fully worked example output.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step Decision Logic sequence names the reference module for each step, with a mandatory clarification gate (Step 1), a required self-critical risk review (Hard Rule 11), and a draft-status completion checkpoint (Section J); it lacks an explicit error-recovery retry loop.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md acts as an overview pointing to nine one-level-deep reference files, each clearly signaled with its filename and the specific section/step where it applies; verified that referenced files exist and contain no nested .md cross-references.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 exemplary: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, comprehensive natural trigger terms, and explicit what-and-when guidance. It is one of the stronger skill descriptions, clearly scoping its niche and redirecting away from generic study design.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions (build executable criteria, translate a target population into operational screening rules tied to chart fields, time windows, tests, procedures, prior therapies, exclusions, and edge cases) with comprehensive domain coverage.

5 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (builds executable, auditable inclusion/exclusion criteria) and 'when' ('Always use this skill when a user needs to translate a target population...') with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It uses natural researcher-facing phrases ('inclusion and exclusion criteria', 'target population', 'screening rules', 'chart fields', 'time windows', 'prior therapies', 'edge cases') with thorough synonym coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear protocol-stage biomedical eligibility niche and explicitly distinguishes itself from 'generic study design advice', giving it minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
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.