journal-matchmaker
Recommend suitable high-impact factor or domain-specific journals for manuscript submission based on abstract content. Trigger when user provides paper abstract and asks for journal recommendations, impact factor matching, or scope alignment suggestions.
89
Quality
86%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
1.28xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its purpose (journal recommendation for academic manuscripts), specifies concrete actions, and includes explicit trigger conditions. The description uses appropriate third-person voice and includes domain-specific terminology that researchers would naturally use when seeking this type of assistance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'Recommend suitable high-impact factor or domain-specific journals', 'manuscript submission', 'based on abstract content', 'impact factor matching', 'scope alignment suggestions'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Recommend suitable high-impact factor or domain-specific journals for manuscript submission based on abstract content') AND when ('Trigger when user provides paper abstract and asks for journal recommendations, impact factor matching, or scope alignment suggestions'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes natural keywords users would say: 'paper abstract', 'journal recommendations', 'impact factor', 'scope alignment', 'manuscript submission'. These are terms researchers naturally use when seeking publication guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on academic journal recommendation based on abstracts. Distinct triggers like 'journal recommendations', 'impact factor matching', and 'scope alignment' are unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides solid actionable guidance with executable CLI commands and good progressive disclosure through clear section organization. However, it suffers from template bloat (risk assessment, security checklist, lifecycle sections) that don't add value for Claude, and the workflow lacks validation checkpoints for error handling scenarios.
Suggestions
Remove boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't provide actionable guidance for Claude
Add validation/error handling guidance: what to do when no journals match, when the database is stale, or when field auto-detection fails
Consider adding an example of actual output (sample recommendation table) so Claude knows what to expect
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes substantial boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that add little value for Claude's execution. The core functionality is reasonably concise, but the template-like additions inflate token count unnecessarily. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable CLI commands with clear parameter documentation, concrete examples with different use cases, and specific file paths for dependencies. The usage section is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'How It Works' section outlines the 5-step process clearly, but lacks validation checkpoints or error recovery guidance. No feedback loops for when matching fails or when the journal database is outdated. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear sections progressing from usage to examples to technical details. References to external files (journals.json, fields.json, scoring_weights.json) are clearly signaled and one level deep. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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
4a48721
- 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.