medical-device-mdr-auditor

Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations.

Quality

55%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/medical-device-mdr-auditor/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 skill body is actionable and reasonably well-structured with real bundle files and concrete commands, but it is padded with boilerplate and redundant sections and lacks an explicit validation feedback loop for its batch audit operation.

Suggestions

Remove boilerplate filler ("See `## X` above for related details" lines, duplicated `## References`, and low-value Risk Assessment / Security Checklist / Lifecycle tables) to improve conciseness.

Add an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint for the batch audit workflow, e.g. re-run the audit after addressing each finding and only exit non-zero when re-validation is clean.

Replace the hardcoded `/Users/z04030865/...` path and `/path/to/...` placeholders in Usage with relative or clearly-marked examples so commands are copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose with boilerplate fillers ("See `## Workflow` above for related details", "See `## Prerequisites` above"), a duplicated "## References" section, and padded risk/security/lifecycle tables, beyond the "some unnecessary explanation" of a 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete executable commands (`python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`, `python scripts/main.py --help`), a full parameters table, and a JSON output example provide mostly copy-paste-ready guidance; not a 5 because usage examples hardcode a user path `/Users/z04030865/...` and use `/path/to/...` placeholders.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequenced Workflow and Error Handling section exist with scope-validation and a fallback path, but this is a batch operation (JSON config batch check) lacking an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, so workflow clarity is capped at 3 per the batch-operations guideline.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is sectioned and the one-level-deep reference `references/audit-reference.md` is clearly linked and verified to exist; not a 5 because the reference file is thin and duplicates SKILL.md content, and there are two redundant "## References" sections.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

57%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 specific and distinctive, clearly stating the regulatory niche, but it omits any explicit trigger/"when" guidance and lacks common synonyms, capping completeness and trigger-term quality at the midpoint.

Suggestions

Add a "Use when…" clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. "Use when auditing medical device technical files for EU MDR 2017/745 compliance, CE marking submissions, or regulatory file reviews."

Include natural user synonyms such as "compliance check", "regulatory", and "CE marking" to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Optionally list 1-2 more concrete actions (e.g. "generate compliance reports", "flag missing Clinical Evaluation Reports") to lift specificity above 3.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations" names a concrete domain and one concrete action (audit), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions; it is not a 4 because only a single action is listed rather than several.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description gives a clear "what" (audit medical device technical files against EU MDR) but contains no "Use when…" clause or equivalent "when" guidance, so completeness is capped at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "medical device", "technical files", "EU MDR", and "2017/745" are relevant keywords, but common user synonyms such as "compliance", "CE marking", or "regulatory" are absent, leaving coverage incomplete.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The MDR 2017/745 medical-device audit niche is highly specific with distinct triggers and minimal realistic overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	14 / 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/medical-device-mdr-auditor/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 13 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.