inplasy-registration-helper

Assists researchers in generating INPLASY registration content for meta-analyses from a title and optional protocol. Use when the user wants to draft a INPLASY registration form.

Quality

58%

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/Protocol Design/INPLASY-registration-helper/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

46%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, well-split bundle and some concrete guidance, but the body is weighed down by templated boilerplate, a PROSPERO/INPLASY naming inconsistency, a broken cross-reference, and a thin, validation-free workflow with no worked generation example.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate in 'When to Use', 'Key Features', and 'Implementation Details' (e.g. 'Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow, and produce a bounded deliverable') and keep only INPLASY-specific guidance to improve conciseness.

Add a worked example that takes a sample title+protocol and fills a section of references/registration_templates.md, showing exactly how `{}` is preserved and `<>` is replaced, so the core generation step is actionable end-to-end.

Add a verification checkpoint to the Workflow (e.g. confirm all `<>` placeholders are filled, all `{}` preserved, and output is in English before returning the draft) and fix the 'See ## Workflow above' cross-reference, since Workflow appears below.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body carries several padded, generic sections that Claude already knows — 'Structured execution path designed to keep outputs consistent and reviewable', 'Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow, and produce a bounded deliverable', and a redundant 'When to Use' that restates the description with broken grammar ('when you need assists researchers'). This matches 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary... padded sections' rather than the mostly-efficient level 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	There is concrete executable guidance (run `scripts/date_utils.py`, follow the placeholder rules in Quality Rules) and a real reference template, but the headline capability — generating registration content from a title+protocol — is only described as 'use the prompts in references/registration_templates.md to generate the sections' with no worked end-to-end example. This is 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details.'	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow lists a clear 3-step sequence (analyze input, calculate timeline, generate content), but there are no validation/verification checkpoints (e.g., confirm all `<>` placeholders were filled, check output is in English) and step 3 is thin. This is not destructive/batch so the hard cap does not apply, but it fits 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit.'	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle structure is sound and verified: `references/registration_templates.md` and `scripts/date_utils.py` both exist and are referenced one level deep with clear signals, and content is appropriately split (overview in SKILL.md, templates in references, date logic in scripts). Minor gaps — inlined boilerplate and a wrong cross-reference ('See ## Workflow above' when Workflow is below) — keep it just under level 5.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 specific to a clear niche, uses natural trigger terms, and explicitly covers both what and when. It is solid but not maximal due to a single trigger phrase and minor overlap with sibling registration skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (INPLASY registration for meta-analyses) and one concrete action (generating/drafting registration content) plus inputs (title, optional protocol), but does not list multiple distinct concrete actions. It fits 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' rather than the 'several specific actions' of level 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (generates INPLASY registration content from a title and optional protocol) and 'when' ('Use when the user wants to draft a INPLASY registration form'). The 'when' clause is concrete and present, but offers a single trigger phrase rather than the broader coverage shown in the level-5 example.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Strong natural keywords for this niche — 'INPLASY registration', 'meta-analysis', 'registration form', 'draft a INPLASY registration form', 'protocol' — terms a researcher would actually say. It is above the midpoint because coverage is good and specific, but stops short of level 5's comprehensive synonyms/extensions (e.g., 'systematic review', '.pdf'-style variations).	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	INPLASY registration for meta-analyses is a clear niche with distinct triggers and low conflict risk. It is not full 5 because of minor overlap with closely related registration skills (e.g., a PROSPERO registration helper), which is reinforced by the body's PROSPERO/INPLASY naming mix.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/Protocol Design/INPLASY-registration-helper/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.