Use medical translation for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
28
20%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/medical-translation/SKILL.mdQuality
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 domain (medical translation for academic writing) but fails to specify concrete actions, deliverables, or explicit trigger scenarios. The language is padded with abstract qualifiers that add no discriminative value, making it difficult for Claude to confidently select this skill over alternatives.
Suggestions
Replace vague qualifiers ('structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', 'clear output boundaries') with concrete actions such as 'Translates medical research papers between languages, adapts clinical terminology for target audiences, formats citations to journal standards'.
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms like 'translate medical paper', 'clinical document', 'medical terminology translation', 'academic manuscript translation', or specific language pairs.
Specify the types of medical documents handled (e.g., research articles, case reports, clinical trial protocols) to improve distinctiveness and help Claude match user requests accurately.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description uses vague, abstract language like 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' without listing any concrete actions. It does not specify what 'medical translation' actually involves (e.g., translating clinical documents, converting medical terminology, localizing patient records). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' clause is present ('for academic writing workflows that need structured execution...'), but the 'what' is extremely weak—it never explains what the skill actually does beyond the vague phrase 'medical translation'. The triggers are abstract rather than explicit. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | 'Medical translation' and 'academic writing' are relevant domain keywords a user might mention, but the description lacks common variations or natural trigger terms like 'translate medical paper', 'clinical document translation', 'medical terminology', or specific file types and languages. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 'medical translation' and 'academic writing' provides some niche specificity, but the vague qualifiers ('structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', 'clear output boundaries') could overlap with any structured writing or translation skill. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is almost entirely generic boilerplate with minimal medical-translation-specific content. The actual domain knowledge (medical terminology translation) is confined to a brief Description/Usage/Parameters/Example section buried in the middle, and even that example contains an error. The vast majority of the document consists of templated sections (risk assessment, security checklist, lifecycle status, response template) that waste tokens without providing actionable guidance for the stated task.
Suggestions
Strip all generic boilerplate (risk tables, security checklists, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria, response templates) and focus on concrete medical translation guidance: terminology databases, translation patterns, domain-specific rules, and worked examples with correct outputs.
Provide multiple concrete translation examples across different language pairs and medical domains (e.g., oncology, cardiology) showing exact input→output with terminology notes.
Add a clear, translation-specific workflow: receive term/text → identify medical domain → look up standard terminology → apply translation conventions → verify against medical dictionaries → output with confidence notes.
Fix the broken example where English→Chinese translation produces English output, and remove circular section references ('See ## X above') that point to sections appearing later in the document.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Contains massive amounts of boilerplate (risk assessment tables, security checklists, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria) that add no value for Claude. Multiple sections reference each other circularly ('See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above'). The skill explains obvious concepts and repeats the same description string multiple times. The actual medical translation task could be described in ~20 lines. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | Despite its length, the skill provides almost no concrete, executable guidance for medical translation. The example output is wrong (input is 'Acute Myeloid Leukemia' English→Chinese but output is English). The bash commands are generic scaffolding (`python scripts/main.py --help`). No actual translation logic, terminology databases, or concrete translation examples are provided. The 'Example run plan' is entirely generic and not specific to medical translation. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow section contains 5 generic steps that could apply to literally any skill ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches'). There are no medical-translation-specific steps, no validation of translation accuracy, no checkpoints for terminology verification, and no concrete sequence for performing a translation. The smoke_test.py command is duplicated in the audit commands. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The document is a monolithic wall of boilerplate text with no meaningful content separation. It references `references/audit-reference.md` but no bundle files are provided. Multiple sections cross-reference each other in confusing ways ('See ## Prerequisites above for related details' appears in Dependencies, but Prerequisites appears later in the document). The structure creates confusion rather than clarity. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 | |
73f6514
Table of Contents
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.