journal-matchmaker

Analyzes academic paper abstracts to recommend optimal journals for submission, considering impact factors, scope alignment, and domain expertise.

Quality

64%

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/Evidence Insight/journal-matchmaker/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 actionable and well-supported by a real, correctly-referenced bundle, with a clear validated workflow, but it is weighed down by repeated description echoes, generic boilerplate, and redundant templated sections that hurt token efficiency.

Suggestions

Remove the three verbatim repetitions of the description sentence from the body (intro, 'When to Use', 'Key Features') and replace the templated filler with genuine trigger guidance.

Delete the generic boilerplate sections (Dependencies, Implementation Details, Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) or condense them into a few lines, since they restate obvious information.

Consolidate the overlapping process sections (Workflow, How It Works, Implementation Details) into one canonical sequenced workflow so the validated path is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose and padded: the description sentence is echoed verbatim four times (intro, 'When to Use', 'Key Features'), and several sections are generic templated boilerplate ('Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow...') plus dangling cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above') that add no information.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides mostly executable guidance — a concrete invocation (`python scripts/main.py --abstract ...`), a full parameter table with types/defaults, runnable examples, and py_compile validation commands; minor gaps such as `--abstract "abstract.txt"` implying a filename rather than abstract text.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 'Workflow' section sequences five steps with explicit validation ('stop early if unsupported assumptions') and a feedback/fallback loop ('If execution fails... switch to the fallback path'), and 'Error Handling' reinforces recovery; not a 5 because the multiple overlapping workflow-ish sections (Workflow, How It Works, Implementation Details) dilute the single canonical path.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle structure is sound and one level deep: the References section clearly signals `references/journals.json`, `references/fields.json`, and `references/scoring_weights.json` (all present on disk), with `scripts/main.py` as the execution surface; not a 5 because the overview itself is burdened with inlined templated sections that could be trimmed rather than cleanly split.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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 and occupies a clear, distinct niche, but it omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance, which caps its completeness and limits its discoverability.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when recommending journals to submit a manuscript, comparing journal impact factors, or matching a paper to a journal's scope').

Add common synonyms users would actually say, such as 'manuscript', 'publish', and 'submit a paper', to broaden trigger coverage.

Enumerate the concrete actions more comprehensively (e.g., 'extract keywords, classify the research field, rank journals by scope match and impact factor') to push specificity toward a 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('academic paper abstracts', 'optimal journals for submission') and several concrete actions ('Analyzes...abstracts', 'recommend optimal journals', 'considering impact factors, scope alignment, and domain expertise'); not a full 5 because the actions are framed at a high level rather than enumerated comprehensively.	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but provides no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural domain terms like 'academic paper abstracts', 'journals for submission', and 'impact factors' are present, but common synonyms users might say ('manuscript', 'publish', 'submit a paper') are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The journal-recommendation niche is specific and clearly distinguishable from other skills, with minimal overlap risk.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/Evidence Insight/journal-matchmaker/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 10 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.