introduction-logic-builder

Builds background-gap-objective logic for biomedical manuscript introductions with clear study positioning and disciplined narrative structure.

Quality

60%

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 ./awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/introduction-logic-builder/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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 well-structured and actionable, with a clear multi-step workflow, a mandatory output template, and real, well-signaled reference files. Its main weakness is redundancy across sections and between the inline rules and the reference files, which inflates token cost without adding guidance.

Suggestions

Consolidate redundant sections: fold 'Core Function' into 'Task', 'What This Skill Should Not Do' into 'Hard Rules', and trim 'Quality Standard' to a pointer rather than restating criteria.

Avoid duplicating rule content inline that already lives in references (e.g. hard-rules.md, clarification-first-rule.md); summarize inline and defer detail to the reference files.

Add one brief worked example (e.g. a short before/after logic outline) under the Mandatory Output Structure so the expected output is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with no basic-concept padding, but it repeats the same guidance across sections (Core Function restates Task; What This Skill Should Not Do restates Hard Rules and Scope Boundary; Quality Standard restates earlier criteria; Input Validation overlaps Step 1 and the clarification reference), which could be consolidated.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: a 10-step procedure, a 9-part (A-I) mandatory output structure with per-section contents, explicit hard rules, and clear clarification criteria; falls short of 5 only because no worked example of an actual output is shown.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 10-step sequence with explicit gating checkpoints (Step 1 clarify-before-build, Step 8 flag uncertainties, Step 10 conditional handoff); not a 5 because validation is 'ask the user' rather than an explicit verify-fix-retry error-recovery loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md is an overview pointing to six real, one-level-deep reference files with clear one-line usage notes, but rule content (Hard Rules, clarification-first) is duplicated both inline and in the reference files, a minor organization gap that keeps it below 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 clear and domain-specific but functions as a single 'what' sentence without an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause, capping completeness and trigger coverage. It is reasonably distinct but would benefit from concrete trigger phrases a researcher would actually say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause listing concrete situations (e.g. 'Use when structuring a biomedical introduction, diagnosing a scattered introduction draft, or building a background-gap-objective flow').

Enumerate several concrete actions the skill performs (clarify inputs, diagnose current logic, define the gap, position the study, explain rationale) to raise specificity.

Include natural user phrasings such as 'introduction feels scattered' or 'structure my introduction' so trigger-term coverage matches how users actually ask.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and central action ('Builds background-gap-objective logic ... with clear study positioning and disciplined narrative structure') but does not enumerate several distinct concrete actions, sitting at the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than a multi-action list.	3 / 5
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' the skill does, but includes no 'Use when...' or equivalent explicit trigger clause; per the guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant domain-natural terms ('biomedical manuscript introductions', 'background-gap-objective', 'study positioning') but omits the common phrasings users actually say (e.g. 'structure my introduction', 'introduction feels scattered'), which appear only in the body's Sample Triggers.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The biomedical introduction-logic niche is specific and mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against general academic-writing skills; it does not reach 5 because the description lacks explicit distinct trigger phrases.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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: awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/introduction-logic-builder/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~8 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.