meta-feasibility-analyzer

Analyzes the feasibility of a proposed Meta-analysis topic by searching for existing Meta-analyses and Clinical Trials on PubMed/ClinicalTrials.gov. Use when you need to evaluate if a topic is viable for a new Meta-analysis.

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Data Analysis/meta-feasibility-analyzer/SKILL.md

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 body delivers a well-sequenced, actionable workflow with concrete script subcommands and explicit decision logic. Its main weakness is verbosity: the description is restated verbatim and several sections are generic template boilerplate that add little.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim restatement of the description in 'When to Use' and 'Key Features'; keep one concise scoping statement instead of repeating it.

Replace the generic 'Implementation Details' boilerplate with skill-specific notes or delete it (its 'See ## Workflow above' pointer signals it adds nothing).

Trim the template 'When to Use' bullets ('packaged method instead of ad-hoc freeform output', 'concrete deliverable') down to the triggers that actually distinguish this skill.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core Workflow is efficient, but the description is repeated verbatim across 'When to Use' and 'Key Features', and 'Implementation Details' is generic boilerplate ('validate the request, choose the packaged workflow'), matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete executable subcommands with arguments ('extract --text', 'search --query --type clinical', 'clinical --json', 'meta --json') plus explicit LLM prompts with decision logic give mostly copy-paste-ready guidance with minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 9-step sequence with an explicit Stage-1 validation checkpoint ('If clinical_count == 0: STOP'); operations are read-only API searches so the destructive/batch feedback-loop cap does not apply, but no fix-retry loop is present, fitting anchor 4.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear section headers structure a single-file skill with one real, clearly signaled script reference (scripts/feasibility_ops.py, verified present); minor organization gaps from the boilerplate sections keep it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 well-formed: third person, names concrete actions and sources, and includes an explicit 'Use when' trigger. Its main limitation is that the trigger clause is self-referential rather than echoing natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Rewrite the 'Use when...' clause to mirror natural user phrasing, e.g. 'Use when the user asks whether a meta-analysis topic is viable or wants to check for existing meta-analyses and clinical trials'.

Add a few natural synonyms/file extensions (e.g. 'systematic review', 'PubMed', 'ClinicalTrials.gov') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions on named sources — 'searching for existing Meta-analyses and Clinical Trials on PubMed/ClinicalTrials.gov' — with minor gaps in coverage, matching the 'lists several specific actions' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Has both a clear 'what' ('Analyzes the feasibility...') and an explicit 'Use when...' clause, but the 'when' is somewhat self-referential rather than user-natural, fitting the 'when could be more explicit or specific' anchor at 4.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage with natural domain terms ('Meta-analysis', 'Clinical Trials', 'feasibility') plus named sources (PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov); a few natural synonyms are missing, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The meta-analysis feasibility niche is mostly distinct with specific triggers, but the generic word 'feasibility' carries minor overlap risk with broader literature-review or research skills, placing it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 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/Data Analysis/meta-feasibility-analyzer/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~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.