lay-summary-gen

Converts complex medical abstracts into plain language summaries for.

Quality

48%

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/Academic Writing/lay-summary-gen/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

42%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 well-sectioned and includes concrete commands, a parameter table, and an output schema, but it is padded with generic boilerplate and lacks both a real-input execution example and explicit validation checkpoints in its workflow. References are only weakly signaled by directory rather than filename.

Suggestions

Remove the generic boilerplate sections (Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Output Requirements, Response Template) or move them into references/guidelines.md, keeping SKILL.md lean.

Replace the 'demo'-only run example with an executable command that takes a real abstract input and shows the expected lay-summary output.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., verify reading level and word count against limits, retry if exceeded) and link references by filename (references/guidelines.md) rather than just the directory.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose, carrying several generic boilerplate sections (Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria checkboxes, Output Requirements, Response Template) and repetitive 'See ## ... above' pointers that add length without skill-specific value.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete commands (py_compile, --help, demo) and a parameter table, but the real-run example is only a 'demo' mode and there is no executable example showing an actual abstract input mapped to the documented output schema.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A 5-step workflow and Error Handling fallback are present, but the steps are abstract and the workflow lacks explicit validation checkpoints or a validate->fix->retry loop for the medium-risk file-output operation.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle files exist and are referenced generically, but the body points only to the `references/` directory rather than naming `references/guidelines.md`, and most content (features, params, security, evaluation) is inlined rather than split out.	3 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 third-person and domain-specific but is grammatically truncated ('for.') and lacks any explicit 'Use when' trigger clause, capping completeness and trigger quality at 3. It is mostly distinct from other skills but would benefit from concrete trigger phrases and a complete sentence.

Suggestions

Complete the truncated sentence and add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers (e.g., 'Use when simplifying medical abstracts into lay summaries for patients, the public, or media').

Surface 2-3 concrete actions (jargon elimination, reading-level optimization, key-takeaways extraction) instead of only the single 'converts' action.

Add natural synonyms and file/audience terms users actually say ('lay summary', 'patient-friendly', 'plain English') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (medical abstracts) and one concrete action (converts to plain language summaries) but does not enumerate the broader concrete actions found in the body, so it is not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	It provides a clear 'what' (converts complex medical abstracts into plain language summaries) but no explicit 'when' or 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant domain keywords ('medical abstracts', 'plain language summaries') but is missing common natural variations such as 'lay summary' or 'patient-friendly' and the sentence is truncated ('for.'), with no 'Use when' phrasing.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The medical-lay-summary domain is a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against general summarization skills, though the truncated description lacks the trigger phrasing that would fully pin it down.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/lay-summary-gen/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 11 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.