CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

meta-manuscript-generator

Generates a first draft of a clinical meta-analysis paper. Input the research report (including Methods and Results sections), language, and title to automatically generate a complete paper draft including Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and other sections, with automatic ...

60

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/meta-manuscript-generator/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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 well-structured, actionable five-stage workflow with executable examples and verification steps, but it carries templated filler and a broken reference link (writing-guide.md vs. the actual writing-guide-en.md) that hold back conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Fix the broken reference: change `[references/writing-guide.md](references/writing-guide.md)` to `references/writing-guide-en.md` to match the actual bundle file.

Remove the generic templated "When to Use" bullets and the redundant "Implementation Details: See ## Workflow above" section to tighten token usage.

Reconcile the inconsistent stage labels ("Phase 1" vs "Stage 2–5") into a single numbering scheme.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with concrete workflow detail, but padded with templated filler ("Use this skill when a academic writing task needs a packaged method instead of ad-hoc freeform output") and redundant pointers ("See `## Workflow` above for related details") that could be trimmed.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides executable code ("from scripts.search_references import search_references_for_theme", "insert_references(article=...)") plus concrete API endpoints, AMA citation format, and word-count targets — copy-paste ready guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced five-stage pipeline (Report Parsing → Reference Retrieval → Section Writing → Reference Insertion → Final Integration) with an Input Validation section, Error Handling, and a Quality Checklist serving as verification, matching the checklist-with-clear-sequence anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Content is split one level deep into a reference guide and scripts, but the body links to `references/writing-guide.md` while the actual bundle file is `references/writing-guide-en.md` — a broken navigation path that prevents a top score.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 names specific deliverables and occupies a clear niche, but it is truncated ("with automatic ...") and lacks any explicit "Use when" trigger guidance, capping completeness and weakening trigger quality.

Suggestions

Complete the truncated description ("with automatic ...") so it ends with a coherent clause such as "with automatic PubMed retrieval of relevant references."

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when drafting a systematic review or meta-analysis manuscript from a completed research report."

Include natural user phrasings ("systematic review", "meta-analysis", "manuscript draft") to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — "Generates a first draft of a clinical meta-analysis paper" and names deliverable sections "Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and other sections" — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Clearly states what it does but provides no "Use when..." trigger guidance, so per the rubric a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2; the description is also truncated mid-sentence.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant domain terms ("clinical meta-analysis paper", "research report") a user might say, but misses common variations and offers no explicit trigger phrasing; the trailing "with automatic ..." is vague.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"clinical meta-analysis paper" with PubMed reference retrieval is a clear, narrow niche unlikely to conflict with other skills, matching the distinct-triggers anchor.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

relative_links

Relative link issues: 1 missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 2 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

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.