meta-protocol-writer

Generates a PROSPERO-compliant Meta-analysis protocol based on Title and PICOS. Use when the user wants to write a protocol for a systematic review or meta-analysis.

Quality

61%

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/Protocol Design/meta-protocol-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

52%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 has a clear, well-sequenced workflow with sensible validation and error handling, and it correctly pushes detail to bundled reference files. It loses points mainly to templated redundancy in 'When to Use'/'Implementation Details' and actionability that depends on out-of-band prompts rather than inline executable guidance.

Suggestions

Trim the templated 'When to Use' bullets and the 'Implementation Details' section that duplicate 'Key Features' and reference the Workflow; keep only distinct, decision-relevant guidance to raise conciseness.

Inline a minimal concrete example of the expected output structure (or a small excerpt of the prompts) so the skill is actionable without requiring Claude to open references/prompts.md for basic execution.

Make validation checkpoints explicit (e.g., an explicit 'validate PICOS completeness -> fix -> retry' loop) to push workflow_clarity toward the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably padded: 'When to Use' repeats the frontmatter description with templated generic bullets, and 'Implementation Details' duplicates 'Key Features' and even says 'See ## Workflow above'. Not a 1 because it does not explain basic concepts Claude already knows.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete constraints are given (word counts, title rules, search end-date) but the core generation is delegated to references/prompts.md and the only bundled script just returns today's date, leaving the executable guidance incomplete. Not a 4 because key execution detail is offloaded rather than provided.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 4-step numbered sequence exists with title-validation and missing-input checkpoints plus an Error Handling section. Not a 5 because some validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Real one-level-deep references (references/prompts.md, scripts/utils.py) are clearly signaled and the overview is kept separate from detail. Not a 5 because some overview content is redundantly inlined across sections.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 clear, third-person, and answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with solid trigger terms. It stops short of the top tier by listing only one concrete action and lacking fuller trigger synonym coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and one concrete action ('Generates a PROSPERO-compliant Meta-analysis protocol based on Title and PICOS'), but lists only a single action rather than comprehensive coverage. It is not a 4 because no additional specific actions are enumerated.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (generates a PROSPERO-compliant protocol) and 'when' ('Use when the user wants to write a protocol for a systematic review or meta-analysis'). Not a 5 because the 'when' could be more specific about required PICOS inputs.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user phrases appear ('write a protocol for a systematic review or meta-analysis', 'PROSPERO', 'PICOS'), giving good coverage. It is not a 5 because common synonyms and extension-style variants are only partially present.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'PROSPERO-compliant Meta-analysis protocol' is a tight, clearly identifiable niche with minimal overlap risk. Not a 5 because it could still faintly overlap with general systematic-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/Protocol Design/meta-protocol-writer/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 12 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.