introduction-section-writer

Writes the full Introduction section of a biomedical manuscript based on an approved or sufficiently clear study logic, while preserving evidence boundaries and introduction discipline.

Quality

56%

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-section-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 content is well-structured and actionable for an instruction-only skill, with a clear multi-step workflow and a strong readiness validation gate, but it is notably verbose due to heavy cross-sectional redundancy and leaves four reference files orphaned.

Suggestions

Consolidate the overlapping directive sections (Task, Core Function, Hard Rules, What This Skill Should Not Do, Quality Standard) into a single canonical rules block to reduce redundant tokens.

Either reference the four orphaned reference files (citation-marker-note, paragraph-role-control-rules, study-positioning-and-claim-boundary-rules, handoff-rule) from the body or remove them from the bundle so navigation is complete.

Add one concise worked example of a short input-to-output transformation to make the citation-marker and PubMed-query guidance fully concrete.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~250-line body restates the same directives ('do not invent missing logic', 'do not fabricate references', 'redirect to Introduction Logic Builder') across Task, Important Distinctions, Core Function, Hard Rules, What This Skill Should Not Do, and Quality Standard; the redundancy is internal rather than pedagogical, but it is still noticeably verbose with several padded sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, specific guidance: a 9-step execution flow, a mandatory 9-part (A-I) output structure, and exact directives like adding a citation-support marker plus a PubMed search query, with only minor gaps such as no worked example of a finished Introduction.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-9 are clearly sequenced with an explicit input-sufficiency validation gate before any full draft is written, but there is no output-level validate-fix-retry loop, leaving a minor validation gap below the anchor for explicit feedback loops.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Six referenced files are real and signaled one level deep under Reference Module Integration, but four bundle files (citation-marker-note, paragraph-role-control-rules, study-positioning-and-claim-boundary-rules, handoff-rule) are not referenced from the body, and the body itself is long and redundant, producing minor organization gaps.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 reasonably specific and distinct but lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, which caps completeness. It describes one concrete action well but does not enumerate multiple actions or natural trigger synonyms.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete user requests such as 'Use when the user asks to write, draft, or rewrite the full Introduction section of a biomedical manuscript after the study logic is clear.'

Broaden natural trigger terms to include synonyms like 'intro', 'background-gap-objective structure', and 'introduction draft' so the skill surfaces for the phrasings users actually say.

Optionally list 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g., annotating citation-needed statements and providing PubMed queries) to lift specificity above a single core action.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (biomedical manuscript Introduction) and the concrete action 'Writes the full Introduction section' with evidence-boundary qualifiers, but does not enumerate multiple specific actions, matching the anchor for naming a domain plus 1-2 actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states the 'what' (writes the full Introduction section) but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'based on an approved or sufficiently clear study logic', which per the guideline caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant natural phrases like 'Introduction section' and 'biomedical manuscript', but misses common synonyms and variations such as 'intro', 'background-gap-objective', or specific study types, fitting the anchor for some relevant keywords with gaps.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The narrow niche of full biomedical Introduction writing is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against the closely related Introduction Logic Builder referenced in the body, matching the 'mostly distinct' anchor.	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-section-writer/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.