medical-device-mdr-auditor

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

Quality

33%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/medical-device-mdr-auditor/SKILL.md

Quality

Discovery

40%

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 identifies a clear, specialized regulatory domain (EU MDR medical device auditing) which provides excellent distinctiveness. However, it lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and could benefit from listing more specific audit actions and common user terminology variations.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'MDR compliance', 'CE marking', 'medical device regulation', 'technical documentation review'

Expand specific actions beyond 'audit' to include concrete tasks like 'verify essential requirements, check clinical evaluation, validate risk management documentation, review labeling compliance'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (medical device technical files, EU MDR 2017/745) and one action (audit), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions like 'check classification, verify clinical evidence, validate labeling requirements'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (audit technical files against MDR) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant technical terms like 'EU MDR 2017/745', 'medical device', 'technical files', and 'audit', but misses common variations users might say like 'MDR compliance', 'CE marking', 'regulatory review', or 'technical documentation'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Very specific niche combining EU MDR 2017/745 regulations with medical device technical files - unlikely to conflict with other skills due to the highly specialized regulatory domain.	3 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

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

This skill suffers from severe verbosity and poor organization, with the same information repeated across multiple sections (When to Use, Key Features, Implementation Details, Workflow, Overview). While it contains useful domain-specific content like MDR checkpoints and output format examples, the signal is buried in boilerplate noise. The skill would benefit from aggressive consolidation to perhaps 30% of its current length.

Suggestions

Consolidate redundant sections: merge 'When to Use', 'Key Features', 'Implementation Details', 'Workflow', and 'Overview' into a single concise overview section

Remove boilerplate sections that don't add skill-specific value: Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template

Fix the hardcoded absolute path in Usage examples to use relative paths from the skill directory

Add explicit validation checkpoint after running the audit: 'If compliance_status is PARTIAL or NON_COMPLIANT, review findings and determine if re-audit is needed after corrections'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose with massive redundancy - sections like 'When to Use', 'Key Features', 'Implementation Details', 'Workflow', 'Overview', and 'Usage' repeat similar information. Contains boilerplate that doesn't add value (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) and explains concepts Claude already knows.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete CLI commands and parameter tables, plus a clear JSON output format example. However, the actual script paths use hardcoded absolute paths that won't work universally, and the MDR checklist items are checkboxes rather than executable validation logic.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multiple workflow sections exist but are scattered and redundant. The 'Example run plan' and 'Workflow' sections provide steps, but validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit. No clear feedback loop for handling audit failures or incomplete technical files.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic document with poor organization - content is duplicated across sections rather than properly structured. References to 'See ## Prerequisites above' and 'See ## Usage above' are confusing since content appears in multiple places. The single reference file link is buried at the bottom.	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

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 — 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: 4a48721

Reviewed: about 20 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.