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

69%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

A well-structured, actionable workflow with validation checkpoints, but it duplicates deliverable descriptions across two sections and fails to surface three bundled reference files, weakening conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the deliverable list: keep one canonical description per output (either in 'Primary Writing Outputs' or 'Writing Output Contract') and cross-reference it from the other section.

Add explicit pointers to the orphaned reference docs, e.g. an '## References' section linking api_reference.md, authentication_guide.md, and integrations.md where the workflow steps touch auth and integrations.

Provide one short worked example (a sample Methods paragraph or data-availability statement) in assets/writing_outputs_template.md or inline to lift actionability from concrete checklists to copy-paste-ready outputs.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with no concept-explanation padding, but the five deliverables are described twice — once in 'Primary Writing Outputs' and again in 'Writing Output Contract' — and 'Deterministic Rules', 'Academic Writing Style Rules', and 'Completion Checklist' overlap, so it could be tightened meaningfully.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, executable script commands ('python scripts/setup_config.py', '--dry-run', '--help'), a copy-paste refusal template, and 'Must include' checklists per output; minor gap is the absence of a worked example of a finished Methods draft or data-availability statement.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 5-step sequence with explicit checkpoints (authorization/sufficiency gate in step 1, '--dry-run' before live execution, a 'final writing safety pass' in step 5) and a script-failure recovery loop, plus a Completion Checklist; minor gap is no separate verify step between drafting (4) and the safety pass (5).	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is well-sectioned and points to scripts/ and assets/writing_outputs_template.md, but three bundled reference docs (references/api_reference.md, authentication_guide.md, integrations.md) are never referenced from the body, leaving them orphaned and unnavigable.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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.

A specific, distinctive description that clearly states what the skill does and enumerates concrete deliverables, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming the trigger situations, e.g. 'Use when the user has authorized LabArchives notebook content and needs a Methods draft, data-availability statement, or reproducibility appendix.'

Include natural synonyms and any relevant file extensions (e.g. '.eln', 'ELN export', 'lab notebook') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Lead with the trigger ('Use when...') before the capability list so the 'when' is as explicit as the 'what'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and lists multiple concrete deliverables — 'Methods sections, data-availability statements, reproducibility appendices, experiment timelines, and submission support notes' — plus 'collect or validate source notebook data', giving comprehensive coverage of its niche.	5 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' ('Converts LabArchives notebook data... into manuscript-ready academic writing outputs') but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the rubric cap completeness stays at 3 even though the 'when' is weakly implied.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural domain terms a researcher would say ('LabArchives', 'notebook', 'Methods sections', 'data availability statement', 'reproducibility appendix', 'manuscript'), but lacks file extensions and a few casual synonyms; good but not comprehensive coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a named platform (LabArchives) and a specific academic-writing deliverable set, creating a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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/Academic Writing/labarchive-integration/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.