multi-panel-figure-assembler
Automatically assemble 6 sub-figures (A-F) into a high-resolution composite figure with aligned edges, unified fonts, and labels.
71
57%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
97%
1.29xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./scientific-skills/Data analysis/multi-panel-figure-assembler/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
50%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 excels at specificity and distinctiveness, clearly describing a niche scientific figure assembly task with concrete details like '6 sub-figures (A-F)' and 'unified fonts'. However, it critically lacks any 'Use when...' guidance, making it difficult for Claude to know when to select this skill from a large pool. The trigger terms could also be expanded to include common user phrasings.
Suggestions
Add a 'Use when...' clause with explicit triggers, e.g., 'Use when the user needs to combine multiple figure panels, create a multi-panel scientific figure, or assemble sub-figures for publication.'
Include natural trigger terms users might say: 'panel figure', 'multi-panel layout', 'combine plots', 'figure for paper/publication', 'arrange subplots'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'assemble 6 sub-figures (A-F)', 'high-resolution composite figure', 'aligned edges', 'unified fonts', and 'labels'. These are precise, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes WHAT it does well but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for WHEN Claude should select this skill. Per rubric guidelines, missing explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 2, and this has none at all. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant terms like 'sub-figures', 'composite figure', 'labels', but misses common variations users might say such as 'panel figure', 'multi-panel', 'figure layout', 'combine images', or 'scientific figure'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Very specific niche: assembling exactly 6 sub-figures (A-F) into composite figures with scientific publication-style formatting. Unlikely to conflict with general image editing or document skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides good actionable guidance with executable examples for both CLI and Python usage. However, it suffers from redundancy (duplicate parameter tables) and includes boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't help Claude perform the task. The workflow could benefit from validation steps and error handling guidance.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicate Parameters table - the Command Line Arguments table already covers this with more detail
Remove or relocate boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that don't provide actionable guidance
Add a troubleshooting section or validation step explaining how to verify output quality and handle common failures (e.g., font not found, aspect ratio mismatch warnings)
Consolidate the Notes section into relevant areas rather than having it as a separate catch-all
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Contains significant redundancy - the Parameters table duplicates the Command Line Arguments table with less information. The Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, and Lifecycle Status sections add boilerplate that doesn't help Claude execute the task. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable code examples for both CLI and programmatic usage. Command line arguments are well-documented with clear defaults, and the examples are copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This is a single-step tool (run command, get output), but lacks validation guidance. No mention of what to do if assembly fails, how to verify output quality, or troubleshooting steps for common issues like mismatched aspect ratios. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is reasonably organized with clear sections, but everything is in one file when some content (like the detailed parameter tables, security checklist, evaluation criteria) could be separated or removed entirely. No references to external documentation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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
ca9aaa4
- 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.