latex-posters
Creates academic-poster writing packages for LaTeX using beamerposter, tikzposter, or baposter. Use when a user needs poster-ready section copy, figure plans, captions, and package-specific layout decisions for conference or thesis posters.
84
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
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 strong description that clearly defines a narrow, specific niche (LaTeX academic poster creation) with concrete actions and explicit trigger guidance. It names specific packages (beamerposter, tikzposter, baposter) which serve as excellent discriminating trigger terms, and the 'Use when...' clause provides clear activation criteria. The description is concise yet comprehensive.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'poster-ready section copy, figure plans, captions, and package-specific layout decisions.' Also names specific LaTeX packages (beamerposter, tikzposter, baposter). | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Creates academic-poster writing packages... poster-ready section copy, figure plans, captions, and package-specific layout decisions') and when ('Use when a user needs poster-ready section copy... for conference or thesis posters'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'academic poster', 'LaTeX', 'beamerposter', 'tikzposter', 'baposter', 'conference poster', 'thesis poster', 'captions', 'layout'. These cover the domain well with both general and package-specific terms. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche: academic poster creation specifically for LaTeX with named packages. Unlikely to conflict with general LaTeX skills, general writing skills, or other document creation skills due to the very specific domain. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured instructional skill with a clear workflow and good constraint definitions for academic poster creation. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete LaTeX code examples (surprising for a LaTeX-focused skill) and moderate verbosity with some redundancy between sections. The refusal contract and quality checklist are strong additions that demonstrate thoughtful workflow design.
Suggestions
Add at least one minimal executable LaTeX snippet per package (beamerposter, tikzposter, baposter) showing a basic block/column definition to make the skill truly actionable for LaTeX assembly.
Consolidate the 'Writing Output Contract' and 'Workflow → Step 5' sections to eliminate redundancy—they describe the same deliverables in slightly different ways.
Trim the 'When to Use / When Not to Use' section; Claude can infer most of these conditions from the skill description and constraints.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably well-organized but includes some redundancy—the 'Writing Output Contract' and 'Workflow' sections overlap significantly, and the 'When to Use / When Not to Use' sections explain things Claude could infer. The final quality checklist partially repeats the output contract. Could be tightened by ~30%. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structured guidance (word budgets, section ordering, package decision matrix) but lacks concrete executable LaTeX code examples. For a LaTeX poster skill, at minimum a snippet showing block definition in each package would make it truly actionable. The references to assets/ templates help but the skill itself contains no copy-paste-ready code. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with logical progression from context collection through package choice, narrative compression, figure planning, and assembly. The refusal/recovery contract provides an explicit feedback loop for invalid requests, and the final quality checklist serves as a validation checkpoint before delivery. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references bundled assets (templates and checklist) which is good progressive disclosure, but the main file itself is somewhat long with content that could be split out (e.g., the package decision matrix or the detailed writing rules). The asset references are clearly signaled but there's no linking to deeper documentation for advanced topics. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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
e1f6461
- 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.