lab-result-interpretation

Transforms biochemical lab test results into clear, patient-friendly explanations. Covers blood routine, lipid panel, liver/kidney function, thyroid, electrolytes, and inflammation markers. Flags critical values, classifies severity, and generates structured interpretation rep...

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/Other/lab-result-interpretation/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%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 largely actionable with a clear sequenced workflow and an explicit safety checkpoint, but it is padded with generic boilerplate and contains dangling references to missing files. Trimming boilerplate and fixing the broken references would raise the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Create the missing `references/test_metadata.json` and `requirements.txt`, or remove the references to them from the body.

Trim generic boilerplate sections (Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template) that do not add lab-specific guidance.

Add a validate→fix→retry feedback loop to the workflow (e.g., re-parse or re-check ranges on malformed input) to reach the top workflow-clarity anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Core sections (Workflow, Supported Test Types, Usage, I/O formats) are efficient, but several generic boilerplate sections (Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements) add tokens without lab-specific knowledge Claude does not already have.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides executable guidance — `python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`, `python scripts/main.py --help`, a concrete module-import example, CLI usage, a parameters table, and sample input/output formats — with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear five-step sequence with per-step Input/Output and an explicit critical-value checkpoint (⛔), but it lacks a validate→fix→retry feedback loop, so it stops short of the top anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is sound — bulk logic in scripts/main.py, data in reference files, overview in SKILL.md with a dedicated References section — but referenced files `references/test_metadata.json` and `requirements.txt` do not exist, creating broken navigation links.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

66%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 conveys a clear, specific capability with good domain and trigger-term coverage, but it omits an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause and is truncated mid-sentence ('rep...'). Adding a 'Use when...' clause and completing the sentence would lift the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers (e.g., 'Use when interpreting lab test results, blood work, or abnormal blood values for patients').

Complete the truncated description ('generates structured interpretation rep...') so the sentence is not cut off.

Include layperson synonyms such as 'blood work' and 'blood test results' alongside the clinical terms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions ('Transforms...explanations', 'Flags critical values', 'classifies severity', 'generates structured interpretation rep...') plus six covered domains, but the truncated 'rep...' leaves a minor gap versus fully comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage with natural clinical terms ('lab test results', 'blood routine', 'lipid panel', 'thyroid', 'electrolytes', 'inflammation markers'), though common layperson phrases like 'blood work' or 'blood test' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear medical lab-interpretation niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, with only minor overlap potential against broader medical skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Other/lab-result-interpretation/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~16 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.