meta-results-risk-of-bias

Generates the "Risk of Bias" results section for a meta-analysis based on assessment tables and statistics. Use when the user wants to draft the risk of bias analysis text from provided data tables.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/meta-results-risk-of-bias/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

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

The content is highly actionable with a concrete prompt template and real executable script, but it is buried under substantial generic, duplicated boilerplate that hurts conciseness and organization. Trimming the redundant templated sections would markedly improve it.

Suggestions

Remove the duplicated 'When to Use' sections and consolidate the scattered validation/quick-validation/failure-handling boilerplate into a single concise validation step inside the workflow.

Delete generic templated sections ('Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Deterministic Output Rules', 'Completion Checklist') that restate what Claude already knows, keeping only the domain-specific prompt template and script usage.

Tighten the workflow to an explicit Draft -> Format -> Validate sequence with a real feedback checkpoint instead of repeating 'python scripts/format_result.py --help' as a validation shortcut in multiple places.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is padded with large amounts of generic boilerplate ('Use this skill when the request matches its documented task boundary', repeated validation shortcuts, 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Completion Checklist') and even duplicates sections (two 'When to Use' headings), adding unnecessary context Claude already knows; not level 2 because the inefficiency is pervasive rather than incidental.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides a copy-paste-ready prompt template (Role/Task/Requirements with explicit placeholders) and an executable command ('python scripts/format_result.py --text "<generated_text>" --language "{{language}}"') backed by a real script, matching the fully-executable level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear two-step sequence (Draft Text, then Format Output) is present, but validation is scattered across redundant boilerplate sections rather than an integrated checkpoint with an error-recovery loop, so it does not reach level 3.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The referenced bundle path 'scripts/format_result.py' is a real file and references are one level deep, but the body is a long monolithic document with duplicated sections and generic content that could be split out, so it is not cleanly organized enough for level 3.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

90%

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 covers both what the skill does and when to use it with natural trigger terms. Its only weakness is that it names a single primary action rather than enumerating multiple concrete capabilities.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the concrete deliverable ('Generates the "Risk of Bias" results section') and its inputs ('assessment tables and statistics'), but describes essentially one action rather than a comprehensive list of multiple concrete actions, so it does not reach level 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Generates the "Risk of Bias" results section ... based on assessment tables and statistics') and when ('Use when the user wants to draft the risk of bias analysis text from provided data tables'), with an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Uses natural terms a user would say — 'Risk of Bias', 'meta-analysis', 'results section', 'bias risk', 'assessment tables' — giving good coverage rather than jargon, matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The meta-analysis risk-of-bias niche is specific with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 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
Commit: 7cc5680

Reviewed: 3 days 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.