labarchive-integration

Converts LabArchives notebook data, entry metadata, and authorized ELN exports into manuscript-ready academic writing outputs such as Methods sections, data-availability statements, reproducibility appendices, experiment timelines, and submission support notes. Optional bundled scripts can be used to collect or validate source notebook data before writing.

Quality

65%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/labarchive-integration/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

62%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured writing workflow with strong sequencing and validation, but it is held back by redundant sections, placeholder script invocations, and failure to navigate to the bundled reference documents.

Suggestions

Link the three references/ files from the body (e.g., 'API details: see references/api_reference.md') so bundled reference content is discoverable instead of orphaned.

Consolidate the redundant 'Primary Writing Outputs', 'Writing Output Contract', 'Academic Writing Style Rules', and 'Deterministic Rules' sections to remove overlapping guidance.

Replace the `--help` placeholder commands with at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready script usage and add one short worked example of a finished writing deliverable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body uses lean bullet structure and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it carries redundant sections — the 'Writing Output Contract' restates 'Primary Writing Outputs', and 'Academic Writing Style Rules' overlaps 'Deterministic Rules' and workflow steps 4-5.	2 / 3
Actionability	Concrete script commands, a refusal template, and 'Must include' output contracts give real guidance, but the script invocations are `--help` placeholders rather than real executable workflows and no worked writing example is provided.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 5-step sequence includes explicit validation checkpoints (authorization/sufficiency in step 1, safety pass in step 5), a `--dry-run` guard for batch operations, a refusal/recovery feedback loop, and a completion checklist.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Scripts and `assets/writing_outputs_template.md` are clearly signaled with paths, but the three `references/` files (api_reference.md, authentication_guide.md, integrations.md) are never linked from the body, leaving real bundle content orphaned.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A specific, distinctive description that clearly communicates the skill's deliverables, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and leans on specialized terminology over natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming the situations that should trigger this skill (e.g., 'Use when the user has authorized LabArchives/ELN data and needs a Methods draft or data-availability statement').

Include more natural everyday phrasings a user might say alongside the technical terms (e.g., 'electronic lab notebook', 'lab notebook export', 'manuscript methods').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions in third person — 'Converts LabArchives notebook data...into...Methods sections, data-availability statements, reproducibility appendices, experiment timelines, and submission support notes'.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so the 'when' is only implied and completeness is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain keywords (LabArchives, ELN, Methods sections, data-availability statements) are present, but the phrasing relies on specialized terminology and lacks common natural variations a user might say.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The LabArchives-ELN-to-academic-writing niche is sharply defined with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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
Commit: 7cc5680

Reviewed: 3 days 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.