medication-adherence-message-gen
Use medication adherence message gen for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.
30
13%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/medication-adherence-message-gen/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
0%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is fundamentally incoherent, combining 'medication adherence message gen' with 'academic writing workflows' without any logical connection. It fails to describe concrete actions, uses abstract buzzwords like 'structured execution' and 'clear output boundaries', and would confuse Claude's skill selection rather than aid it.
Suggestions
Clarify the actual purpose of the skill—decide whether it's about medication adherence messaging or academic writing, and describe concrete actions (e.g., 'Generates patient-facing medication reminder messages' or 'Structures academic papers with explicit methodology sections').
Add a meaningful 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms a user would actually say, such as 'Use when the user asks to create medication reminder texts, pill adherence notifications, or patient compliance messages.'
Remove abstract filler phrases like 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' and replace them with specific capabilities and output formats.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description mentions 'medication adherence message gen' and 'academic writing workflows' but does not list any concrete actions. Terms like 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' are abstract and vague. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'what' is unclear—it's impossible to determine what this skill actually does from the description. While there is a 'Use when' clause, the trigger condition ('academic writing workflows that need structured execution') is vague and contradicts the skill name about medication adherence. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The description combines two unrelated domains ('medication adherence message gen' and 'academic writing workflows') in a confusing way. Users would not naturally use these terms together, and the keywords are either overly specific jargon or too abstract to serve as useful triggers. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description is deeply confusing by mixing medication adherence and academic writing, making it unclear what domain this skill belongs to. This incoherence would cause unpredictable triggering behavior and potential conflicts with both health-related and academic writing skills. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 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 bloat with auto-generated boilerplate sections (risk assessment, security checklist, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria) that consume tokens without adding actionable value. The core medication adherence message generation content (psychological principles table, CLI options, examples, output formats) is reasonably useful but is buried under layers of generic template content. The description mismatch between 'academic writing workflows' and medication adherence message generation creates additional confusion.
Suggestions
Remove all boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template, Output Requirements) that don't provide task-specific guidance — these waste context window tokens.
Consolidate the duplicated workflow content (Example Usage run plan, Workflow section, Implementation Details) into a single clear workflow section with concrete validation steps.
Fix the circular cross-references ('See ## Prerequisites above' when it appears below) and resolve the description mismatch between 'academic writing workflows' and medication adherence message generation.
Move the psychological principles table and detailed API reference to a separate reference file, keeping only a quick-start example and CLI synopsis in the main skill file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and repetitive. Contains massive amounts of boilerplate (security checklists, lifecycle status, evaluation criteria, risk assessments) that add no value for Claude. Multiple sections reference each other circularly ('See ## Prerequisites above', 'See ## Usage above'). The skill explains obvious concepts and includes template sections that are clearly auto-generated filler. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The CLI examples and Python API usage are concrete and executable, and the options table is well-specified. However, much of the skill is generic boilerplate rather than task-specific actionable guidance. The workflow steps are abstract ('Confirm the user objective') rather than concrete commands. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | There is a numbered workflow and an example run plan, but they are generic and lack specific validation checkpoints. The error handling section mentions fallbacks but doesn't provide concrete recovery steps. The workflow is duplicated across multiple sections (Example Usage run plan, Workflow section, Response Template) without clear differentiation. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic wall of text with many sections that should be separated or removed entirely. Boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) bloat the main file. Cross-references are circular and confusing ('See ## Prerequisites above' when Prerequisites appears below). Only one external reference file is linked. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 6 / 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 | |
- Repository
- aipoch/medical-research-skills
- Commit
5c61b71
- 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.