CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

method-writing

Write and revise the Methods section of research papers to ensure reproducibility; use when preparing an IMRAD manuscript or responding to journal/reporting-guideline requirements (e.g., CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA).

69

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

A well-structured, highly actionable Methods-writing skill with a concrete IMRAD algorithm, detailed reproducibility and statistical guidance, a worked example, and correctly signaled one-level-deep reference files. The main weakness is token efficiency: several generic process-hygiene sections restate what Claude already knows and could be trimmed.

Suggestions

Trim or collapse the generic boilerplate sections ('Required Inputs', 'Recommended Workflow', 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', 'Quick Validation', 'User Checkpoints') into a few concise lines, since they restate process hygiene Claude already applies.

Move the long worked example draft into a reference file (e.g., references/methods_example.md) and keep only a short pointer plus the most instructive fragment inline, improving token efficiency while preserving actionability.

Tie the validation/checkpoint language to Methods-section-specific failure modes (e.g., missing reporting-checklist items, mismatched Methods-vs-Results content) rather than generic scope/validation phrasing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The IMRAD algorithm, statistical-reporting parameters, terminology rules, and worked example are substantive and skill-specific, but generic boilerplate sections ('Required Inputs', 'Recommended Workflow', 'Validation and Safety Rules', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', 'Quick Validation', 'User Checkpoints') restate process hygiene Claude already applies, fitting 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation'.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides a concrete 10-step Methods-section algorithm with itemized specifics (e.g., 'italicize gene symbols (e.g., *TP53*)', 'Cohen's d, η², OR, RR and 95%/99% CIs', 'block randomization') plus a full manuscript-ready example draft, matching 'concrete, executable guidance' for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The numbered IMRAD-aligned algorithm gives a clear sequence, supplemented by an explicit final validation pass ('Run a final validation pass for completeness, consistency, and safety') and user-checkpoint guidance; this is a generation skill rather than a destructive/batch operation, so the sequence with checkpoints fits the top anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Three real reference files (imrad_structure.md, reporting_guidelines.md, writing_principles.md) are referenced one level deep and signaled inline at the relevant steps ('if available'), plus a concise optional reference list, matching 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

85%

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, specific description with an explicit 'use when' trigger and a clear, low-conflict niche in research-paper Methods writing. Its main limitation is trigger-term coverage that leans on technical jargon rather than the plain phrasings a user might actually say.

Suggestions

Broaden trigger terms with more natural user phrasings (e.g., 'when writing the Methods section', 'when preparing a clinical trial manuscript', 'when a journal asks for CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA compliance') so non-expert users match this skill.

Consider naming the study-type scope explicitly in the description (RCTs, observational studies, systematic reviews) to sharpen the trigger further.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('Write and revise the Methods section', 'ensure reproducibility', 'preparing an IMRAD manuscript', 'responding to journal/reporting-guideline requirements (e.g., CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA)') tied to a specific domain, matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states both what the skill does ('Write and revise the Methods section... to ensure reproducibility') and when to use it ('use when preparing an IMRAD manuscript or responding to journal/reporting-guideline requirements'), matching the 'clearly answers both what AND when with explicit triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant domain terms (IMRAD manuscript, journal/reporting-guideline requirements, CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA) but these skew toward technical jargon and miss common lay phrasings a user might say, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Methods-section / IMRAD / CONSORT-STROBE-PRISMA niche is highly specific to medical-research manuscript preparation and unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

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

Warning

Total

15

/

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.