CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

meta-criteria-generator

Generates scientifically sound inclusion and exclusion criteria for Meta-Analysis based on a given title or keywords. Use when user wants to design eligibility criteria for a systematic review or meta-analysis.

60

Quality

70%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Data Analysis/meta-criteria-generator/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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.

The content is actionable with a real, runnable script and a clearly sequenced PICO-based workflow, supported by a clean two-script bundle. Its main weakness is verbosity: substantial generic boilerplate dilutes the domain-specific guidance.

Suggestions

Trim the generic boilerplate sections (When to Use, Key Features, Implementation Details, Recommended Workflow, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist) that do not add domain-specific value.

Add an explicit validate-output-and-retry loop in the core three-step workflow (e.g., confirm extracted criteria are non-empty and consistent before returning) to strengthen workflow_clarity.

Consolidate the duplicate validation/quick-validation sections (Validation Shortcut, Quick Validation, Validation and Safety Rules) into a single clearly signaled section.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The core criteria-generation section is efficient and avoids over-explaining concepts Claude knows, but the body is padded with large blocks of generic boilerplate (When to Use, Key Features, Implementation Details, Recommended Workflow, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist) that add tokens without domain-specific value, matching the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides a concrete, runnable command ('python scripts/extract_criteria.py --inclusion ... --exclusion ...'), specifies the PICO structure, and gives a concrete output format ('{(1) Participants: ...; (2) Interventions: ...; ...}'), which is mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The three-step workflow (inclusion, exclusion, extract/format) is clearly sequenced with surrounding validation rules and a completion checklist; minor gaps exist because the core workflow lacks an explicit validate-output-then-fix-retry loop, fitting the 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present' anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle structure is sound: scripts/extract_criteria.py and scripts/validate_skill.py are referenced and exist as real files at one level of depth, and references are clearly signaled; minor organization gaps come from the inlined generic boilerplate, keeping it just below the well-split 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

73%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.

The description is specific, has a clear niche, and explicitly couples a 'what' with a 'Use when' trigger. It is strong overall but slightly limited in specificity (only two named actions) and trigger-term variety.

Suggestions

Add a couple more concrete actions or outputs (e.g., 'structures criteria by PICO components') to lift specificity toward the 5 anchor.

Broaden trigger phrasing with user-natural synonyms such as 'PICO', 'PICOS', or 'study eligibility' to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (meta-analysis criteria) and two concrete actions ('Generates... inclusion and exclusion criteria'), but does not enumerate a broader set of specific actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Completeness

Clearly states the 'what' (generates scientifically sound criteria) and an explicit 'Use when...' trigger, satisfying both requirements; the 'when' clause is concrete but the trigger phrasing is somewhat limited, which keeps it just below the fully comprehensive 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say ('inclusion and exclusion criteria', 'Meta-Analysis', 'eligibility criteria', 'systematic review or meta-analysis'), with good keyword coverage, but is missing common synonyms and the PICO framing that would warrant a 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (meta-analysis eligibility criteria) with distinct, specific triggers that are unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with minimal conflict risk' anchor.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

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.