CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

medical-research-literature-reader-pro

A medical-research-native literature reading skill for users with clinical, bioinformatics, translational, and basic experimental backgrounds. Use this skill whenever a user wants to read, analyze, critique, or interpret a medical or scientific paper — whether they provide a PDF, abstract, DOI, PMID, or just a title. Triggers include requests like \"analyze this paper\", \"critique this study\", \"is this a strong paper?\", \"give me similar studies\", \"prepare me for journal club\", \"help me understand this bioinformatics paper\", \"what are the weaknesses here?\", or \"turn this into a mind map\". Also activate for any downstream deliverables such as journal club kits, comparison tables, PI decision briefs, replication starters, or follow-up experiment designs. Do NOT treat as a generic summarizer — this skill performs structured evidence-type classification, track-specific critical appraisal, interpretation-boundary judgment, and research-grade follow-up generation.

72

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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, mostly efficient skill body with a clear multi-step workflow and excellent progressive disclosure via real one-level-deep reference files. The main improvements would be removing the redundant reference re-listing and adding an explicit output self-check feedback loop.

Suggestions

Remove or consolidate the "Reference Module Integration" section, since each module is already linked inline where it is used, to reduce repetition.

Add an explicit final validation/self-check step (e.g., verify all template sections are present and interpretation boundaries are stated before delivering) to strengthen the workflow feedback loop.

Tighten the Output Modes table and Decision Logic Step 3/4, which overlap on output-depth selection and plugin activation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and operational with no concept-explanation padding, but the dedicated "Reference Module Integration" section re-lists references already linked inline and the Output Modes/Decision Logic sections overlap slightly, giving minor trim opportunities.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides a concrete 15-section output template with per-section content guidance, numbered entry-layer steps, and explicit behavioral rules; the appraisal detail itself is delegated to referenced modules, so the body alone gives a strong framework with minor execution gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequenced flow (Input Handling → Output Mode → Decision Logic → Entry Layer → Track Analysis → Template) with checkpoints like the Minimum Viable Input escalation and "treat output as incomplete" rule; lacks an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop, but the skill is analytical rather than destructive so this is a minor gap.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All six inline reference links (tracks, plugins, expert_review_extensions, literature_module, followup_module, reporting_style) resolve to real files in references/, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled; heavy detail is appropriately split out of SKILL.md.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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 strong, comprehensive description that clearly states capabilities, provides abundant natural trigger phrases, and explicitly separates itself from generic summarizers. The only minor concern is density/length, but every clause is functional rather than padded.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "structured evidence-type classification, track-specific critical appraisal, interpretation-boundary judgment, and research-grade follow-up generation" — plus downstream deliverables, giving comprehensive coverage of capabilities.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (a medical-research-native literature reading skill performing structured classification/appraisal) and when ("Use this skill whenever a user wants to read, analyze, critique, or interpret a medical or scientific paper") with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes many natural user phrases ("analyze this paper", "critique this study", "prepare me for journal club", "turn this into a mind map") with synonym and input-format variations; these read as things a user would actually say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear medical-research niche with distinct triggers and an explicit negative clause ("Do NOT treat as a generic summarizer"), minimizing overlap with adjacent summarization or writing skills.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
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.