moa-explainer
Generate 3D animation scripts and lay explanations for drug mechanisms.
28
20%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/moa-explainer/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
40%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 identifies a clear and distinctive niche—3D animation scripts for drug mechanisms—but is too terse to be effective for skill selection. It lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') and misses important keyword variations that users might naturally use when requesting this type of work.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about drug mechanism animations, pharmacology visualizations, or medical animation scripts.'
Include natural keyword variations such as 'mechanism of action', 'MOA', 'pharmacology', 'medical animation', 'drug visualization', and 'patient education'.
Expand the capability list with more specific actions, e.g., 'Generate 3D animation storyboards, write narration scripts for drug mechanism videos, and create plain-language explanations of pharmacological processes.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (drug mechanisms, 3D animation) and two actions (generate scripts, lay explanations), but lacks detail on what kinds of scripts, what format, or what specific sub-tasks are supported. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what the skill does but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. Per the rubric, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2, and since the 'what' is also only moderately detailed, this scores a 1. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes some relevant terms like '3D animation', 'drug mechanisms', and 'scripts', but misses common variations users might say such as 'pharmacology', 'MOA', 'mechanism of action', 'medical animation', or 'drug visualization'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of 3D animation scripts and drug mechanism explanations is a very specific niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is almost entirely generic boilerplate with minimal domain-specific content. It fails to provide any concrete guidance on generating 3D animation scripts or lay explanations for drug mechanisms — the core purpose of the skill. The few domain-relevant sections (Parameters, Returns, Use Cases, Example) are skeletal and lack the executable examples, templates, or structured formats needed to make the skill actionable.
Suggestions
Replace the generic workflow with a domain-specific workflow: e.g., 1) Research drug's mechanism at molecular level, 2) Identify key visual moments (binding, conformational change, downstream effects), 3) Write animation storyboard with scene descriptions, camera angles, and timing, 4) Draft voiceover script matched to storyboard scenes, 5) Create simplified lay explanation.
Add a complete, concrete example showing input (drug name, target, disease, audience) mapped to output (actual storyboard excerpt, voiceover script sample, and lay explanation paragraph) so Claude knows the expected format and depth.
Remove boilerplate sections that add no skill-specific value: Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, and the generic Response Template. These consume tokens without teaching Claude anything about MoA visualization.
Provide actual templates or formats for the deliverables (animation storyboard format, voiceover script structure, key visual concepts layout) rather than just listing them as bullet points in Returns.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose and padded with boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria, Response Template) that add no actionable value for the task. Many sections are generic templates not tailored to the specific skill of generating 3D animation scripts. Self-referential links like 'See ## Prerequisites above' and 'See ## Workflow above' add confusion without content. The actual domain-specific content (Parameters, Returns, Use Cases) is buried under layers of generic scaffolding. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is no concrete, executable guidance for actually generating 3D animation scripts or lay explanations. The 'Example' section is just 'PD-1 inhibitor mechanism for patient education' with no input/output demonstration. The workflow steps are entirely abstract ('Confirm the user objective', 'Use the packaged script path'). No actual animation script format, storyboard template, or voiceover script example is provided. The `scripts/main.py` is referenced but no bundle files exist, and no indication of what it actually does. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is a generic 5-step process that could apply to any skill ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate that the request matches the documented scope'). There are no specific steps for how to research a drug mechanism, structure an animation storyboard, write a voiceover script, or create lay explanations. No validation checkpoints specific to the domain (e.g., medical accuracy review, terminology verification). The 'Example run plan' is also generic and doesn't address the actual creative/scientific workflow. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References `references/audit-reference.md` and `scripts/main.py` but no bundle files are provided, making these dead references. The document is a monolithic wall of boilerplate sections with no meaningful content hierarchy. The actual skill-specific information (Parameters, Returns, Use Cases) is minimal and buried deep in the document after extensive generic scaffolding. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- aipoch/medical-research-skills
- Commit
73f6514
- 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.