microbiome-diversity-reporter

Interpret Alpha and Beta diversity metrics from 16S rRNA sequencing results.

Quality

55%

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/Academic Writing/microbiome-diversity-reporter/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 content is actionable with concrete commands and formats, and the workflow is reasonably sequenced with validation, but it is bloated with generic template boilerplate and duplicates that hurt token efficiency. Splitting inlined reference material into separate files and trimming boilerplate would markedly improve conciseness and structure.

Suggestions

Remove generic boilerplate blocks (Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Security Checklist, duplicated References) that do not add skill-specific value to reduce verbosity.

Move the parameter table, input/output format specs, and example JSON into references/ files and link to them from SKILL.md to improve progressive disclosure.

Consolidate the two 'References' sections into one clearly signaled reference block to avoid confusing navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is heavily padded with generic boilerplate (Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria test cases, Security Checklist, duplicate References sections, templated 'When to Use'/'Key Features'/'Implementation Details' blocks) that restate the description rather than add skill-specific value, matching 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready CLI commands ('python scripts/main.py --input otu_table.tsv --metric shannon --output alpha_report.html'), a concrete parameter table, sample input TSV formats, and an example JSON output, giving mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequenced Workflow (confirm -> validate scope -> execute -> structured result -> fallback) plus Error Handling and Input Validation sections supply most checkpoints including a py_compile quick check, though several steps remain generic rather than fully concrete.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle files exist and are referenced (references/audit-reference.md, scripts/main.py), but the body inlines substantial material that belongs in references (parameter table, input/output formats, example JSON, security checklist) and contains two overlapping References sections, fitting 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 domain-specific and unambiguous about what the skill does, but it is a single sentence with no explicit trigger guidance and limited keyword variation. Adding a 'Use when...' clause and a few natural synonyms would lift completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when interpreting alpha/beta diversity from 16S rRNA or amplicon sequencing results, OTU/ASV tables, or microbiome community comparisons.'

Add concrete actions beyond 'Interpret' (e.g., calculate, compare, visualize, report) to improve specificity.

Include common synonyms users say (microbiome diversity, OTU/ASV tables, community dissimilarity) to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names a specific domain ('Alpha and Beta diversity metrics from 16S rRNA sequencing results') with one concrete action verb ('Interpret'), but offers only a single action and no enumeration of what the interpretation entails, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions but not comprehensive' anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' (interpret diversity metrics from 16S results) but contains no 'Use when...' trigger clause, and per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It surfaces domain terms a microbiome researcher would say ('Alpha and Beta diversity', '16S rRNA sequencing') but uses a single phrasing with no synonyms or variants (e.g., microbial community diversity, OTU/ASV tables), fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The microbiome/16S diversity niche is fairly distinct with limited overlap risk, though it could still collide with broader bioinformatics or sequencing-analysis skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/Academic Writing/microbiome-diversity-reporter/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 13 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.