open-source-license-check

Check if referenced bioinformatics software/code licenses allow commercial use (GPL vs MIT, etc.).

Quality

51%

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/Evidence Insight/open-source-license-check/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 offers genuinely executable commands and a working script with a useful license table, but is weighed down by verbose templated boilerplate and circular cross-references. Workflow validation is implicit and much inlined material could be moved to references.

Suggestions

Remove circular cross-reference filler ("See `## X` above for related details.") and consolidate the duplicated Quick Check / Audit-Ready Commands sections.

Move large boilerplate blocks (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) into references/ or trim them to keep SKILL.md a lean overview.

Embed an explicit validation checkpoint (e.g., run py_compile then --help) directly into the Workflow steps rather than isolating it in a separate section.

Reconcile the documented --check-directory parameter with the script, either implementing it or removing it from the Parameters list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body contains many padded/templated sections with circular cross-references ("See `## Prerequisites` above for related details.", "See `## Usage` above", "See `## Workflow` above") plus substantial boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Response Template), making it noticeably verbose rather than just minor over-explanation.	2 / 5
Actionability	Concrete executable commands are provided (py_compile, --help, --software, --check-requirements) alongside a documented parameter list and a license-type table, with only minor gaps such as the documented --check-directory parameter being absent from the script's argparse.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section lists a sequenced set of steps with an early scope-validation stop and a fallback path, but validation checkpoints remain implicit and are split off into a separate Quick Check section rather than embedded in the workflow sequence.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A real one-level-deep reference (references/audit-reference.md) and script (scripts/main.py) are clearly signaled, but the body inlines large boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, License Types, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) that could be split out or trimmed, leaving organization only partially strong.	3 / 5
	Total	12 / 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 clearly states what the skill does within a specific bioinformatics niche, but omits any explicit "when to use" trigger guidance, capping completeness. Keywords are relevant but lack natural user phrasings. It is reasonably distinct from generic skills.

Suggestions

Add an explicit "Use when..." clause stating when Claude should invoke this skill (e.g., "Use when evaluating whether bioinformatics tools can be used in commercial pipelines").

Include natural user-facing trigger terms and synonyms such as "license compatibility", "can I use this commercially", and common tool names.

Expand specificity by listing multiple concrete actions (e.g., classify licenses, flag copyleft risks, recommend compliant alternatives).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Check if referenced bioinformatics software/code licenses allow commercial use (GPL vs MIT, etc.)" names the domain and one concrete action (check commercial use) but does not list multiple specific actions, matching the anchor for naming domain plus 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description gives a clear "what" but has no "Use when..." or equivalent explicit "when" trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant domain keywords like "bioinformatics software/code licenses", "commercial use", and "GPL vs MIT" are present, but common natural user phrasings and synonyms are largely missing, fitting the anchor for some relevant keywords without common variations.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The bioinformatics niche plus the explicit GPL/MIT license-compatibility framing is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against closely related skills, though it lacks explicit distinct trigger phrases needed for a 5.	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/Evidence Insight/open-source-license-check/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 10 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.