meeting-minutes

Use meeting minutes for other workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.

Quality

37%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/meeting-minutes/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%

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

The body is a bloated template stuffed with generic risk, security, lifecycle, and evaluation sections that crowd out the skill's actual guidance. The underlying script and workflow are concrete but the document spends most of its tokens on boilerplate Claude already knows.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant template sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, and the cross-references to 'See ## above') that add no skill-specific value.

Make scripts/main.py accept the documented inputs (transcript, meeting_type) via CLI args so the example commands are actually runnable, or document the in-file CONFIG approach honestly.

Replace generic 'Reference material available in references/' with a pointed link such as 'See references/guidelines.md for ICH E6 / FDA meeting documentation rules'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is padded with redundant template boilerplate (verbatim description repeats in 'When to Use', cross-references to 'See ## Features above', generic risk tables, security checklists, lifecycle/evaluation sections) that teaches Claude nothing it doesn't already know, matching the verbose/padded anchor.	1 / 3
Actionability	It provides concrete executable commands (`python scripts/main.py`, `python -m py_compile`) and a real script with input/output tables, but the packaged script actually runs a hardcoded demo transcript and accepts no CLI args despite the suggested `--help`, so the guidance is incomplete.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section lists a clear sequence with scope validation and a fallback path, but there is no explicit validate->fix->retry feedback loop for the transcript-processing operation, leaving checkpoints implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Real one-level-deep bundle files exist (references/guidelines.md, scripts/main.py) and are mentioned, but the body signals them generically ('Reference material available in references/') rather than clearly pointing to what each contains, and most content is inline boilerplate instead of being split out.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

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 reads as a meta-framing of when meeting minutes are useful rather than a statement of what the skill does, leaving its core capability unstated. It has one natural trigger term but is otherwise abstract and generic.

Suggestions

State the concrete action first, e.g. 'Structures medical meeting transcripts into formal minutes with action items, decisions, and attendees.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural triggers like 'meeting transcripts', 'clinical meeting notes', or 'FDA/ICH meeting documentation'.

Drop the generic 'for other workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' tail, which inflates the description without adding distinctiveness.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names no concrete actions (e.g. 'structures', 'extracts', 'logs'); it only frames meeting minutes as input for 'other workflows that need structured execution', which is abstract language matching the anchor for vague/no actions.	1 / 3
Completeness	It implies a 'when/for' framing but never states what the skill actually does (the 'structures medical meeting transcripts into formal minutes' capability appears only in the body, not the description), so the 'what' is missing from the description itself.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'meeting minutes' is a natural user term, but 'structured execution', 'explicit assumptions', and 'clear output boundaries' are process jargon rather than phrases users would commonly say, so coverage is partial.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'meeting minutes' gives it a niche, but 'for other workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' is a generic framing that could overlap with many structured-output skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 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/meeting-minutes/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: about 4 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.