moa-explainer

Generate 3D animation scripts and lay explanations for drug mechanisms.

Quality

53%

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/moa-explainer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

52%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 body is well-structured with real bundle files and a clear workflow, but it is padded with generic process boilerplate and lacks a full executable example invocation of the script. Tightening the boilerplate and adding a concrete run example would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove or relocate generic boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, Evaluation Criteria) that is not specific to MoA explanation, trimming SKILL.md toward a lean overview.

Add a complete, copy-paste example invocation using real arguments, e.g. `python scripts/main.py --drug pembrolizumab --mechanism 'blocks PD-1 binding to PD-L1' --target PD-1 --type script`.

Move the detailed audit/fallback material into references/audit-reference.md and replace the inlined checklist with a one-line pointer to keep references one level deep.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose, padded with generic templated boilerplate ('Execution model: validate the request, choose the packaged workflow...', 'Output discipline: keep results reproducible...') plus generic Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Lifecycle Status, and Evaluation Criteria sections that add little domain-specific value; it is above 1 because genuine MoA-specific content (Use Cases, Parameters, Returns) is also present.	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete audit commands (`python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`, `python scripts/main.py --help`) and lists parameters/returns, but it never shows a real invocation with the required --drug/--mechanism/--target arguments, leaving key execution details missing.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section gives a clear five-step sequence with a scope-validation gate, a separate Quick Check validation checkpoint (py_compile), and an explicit fallback path; it falls short of 5 because the workflow checkpoints are partly abstract rather than tied to concrete output validation.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle files match the body: scripts/main.py and references/audit-reference.md are both real and referenced with one-level-deep links, and the document is organized under clear section headers; it is not 5 because substantial generic boilerplate is inlined in SKILL.md rather than moved to the reference file.	4 / 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 specific about its drug-mechanism domain and two concrete deliverables, but it omits any 'Use when...' trigger guidance and lacks common synonym keywords. This makes it competent but not exemplary, capped on completeness by the missing trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases, e.g. 'Use when creating 3D animation scripts or lay explanations for drug mechanisms (MoA), or for patient education on how a drug works.'

Broaden trigger-term coverage with synonyms users actually say: 'mechanism of action', 'MoA', 'storyboard', 'voiceover', 'patient education'.

Consider listing a third concrete output (e.g. storyboards or key visual concepts) to push specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('drug mechanisms') and two concrete actions ('Generate 3D animation scripts' and 'lay explanations'), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions that are not comprehensive; it does not reach 4 because only two actions are listed rather than several.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does ('Generate 3D animation scripts and lay explanations for drug mechanisms') but lacks any 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant natural keywords ('3D animation scripts', 'lay explanations', 'drug mechanisms') but omits common variations and synonyms a user might say ('MoA', 'mechanism of action', 'patient education', 'storyboard', 'voiceover'), so it does not reach 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The drug-mechanism visualization niche is mostly distinct from other skills with only minor overlap risk against general medical-education or animation skills; it is not a 5 because the absence of explicit trigger phrases leaves a small ambiguity.	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/moa-explainer/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 11 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.