method-gap-detector

Detects methodological gaps across study design, analysis, validation, bias control, reproducibility, and implementation readiness within a biomedical research area. Use this skill when a user wants to identify what current studies are still methodologically missing, which weaknesses are most consequential, and what upgrade path would produce a stronger next-step study. Always separate design gaps, analysis gaps, validation gaps, and reproducibility gaps. Never treat technical complexity as methodological rigor.

Quality

85%

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

Quality

Content

77%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.

A well-structured analytical skill with a clear sequenced workflow, an explicit self-validation step, a mandatory output template, and clean one-level-deep reference navigation. Its main weakness is redundancy across the three negative-guidance sections, which inflates length without adding information.

Suggestions

Consolidate the duplicated negative-guidance: merge 'Core Function: This skill should not', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and the prohibitions in 'Hard Rules' into a single authoritative list to remove triplicated content.

For Steps 4–7, add a one-line concrete decision cue per gap class (e.g. a defining question) so the classification and upgrade steps read as procedure rather than category labels.

Trim the 'Quality Standard' section, which restates the Core Function and output expectations already specified earlier, to recover token budget.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids generic concept explanations, but the negative-behavior guidance is repeated across 'Core Function: This skill should not', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Hard Rules', adding noticeable redundancy that could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, specific guidance — an 8-step process, per-step sub-bullets, and a mandatory A–I output structure — but a few steps remain at the level of category labels (e.g. 'design gap, bias-control gap') rather than fully specified procedure.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The eight steps are explicitly sequenced ('always run in order') and Step 8 is a self-critical review checkpoint that serves as a validation/feedback loop before finalizing, satisfying the explicit-checkpoint anchor.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that points to seven real, one-level-deep reference files, each clearly signaled with the exact sections it applies to (e.g. 'use when classifying method gaps in Sections C–F'), and all referenced paths verified to exist.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong, third-person description that clearly states capabilities, gives explicit use-when triggers, and carves out a distinct niche. It is comprehensive on what/when and distinctiveness; trigger phrasing is solid though not maximally varied.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists concrete capability dimensions — 'study design, analysis, validation, bias control, reproducibility, and implementation readiness' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill detects rather than a single generic action.	5 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (detects methodological gaps across six dimensions) and 'when' via a concrete 'Use this skill when a user wants to...' clause with concrete triggers.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It supplies natural trigger phrasing a user would say ('identify what current studies are still methodologically missing', 'which weaknesses are most consequential', 'upgrade path'), but coverage of synonymous phrasings is good rather than exhaustive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The biomedical methodology-gap-analysis niche is specific with distinct triggers, and the closing imperative ('Never treat technical complexity as methodological rigor') further sharpens its boundary against generic critique skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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: awesome-med-research-skills/Evidence Insight/method-gap-detector/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.