pdf-extract-experimental-materials

Extract experimental materials and instrument information from PDFs (or PDF-derived text/Markdown) into three CSV tables; use when a paper/report contains sections like Materials and Methods, Key Resources Table, Reagents, Antibodies, Consumables, Software, Equipment, Instruments, or Reagent Preparation.

Quality

77%

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/pdf-extract-experimental-materials/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

55%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 delivers solid, actionable extraction rules and exact CSV schemas, but is diluted by generic template boilerplate and marred by a non-portable example path plus contradictory validation guidance. Tightening the filler and reconciling the validation instructions would meaningfully raise quality.

Suggestions

Remove or collapse the generic boilerplate sections (Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist, Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow) into skill-specific guidance, since most lines are template filler not tied to PDF extraction.

Replace the Windows-specific example path 'd:\SKILL\project\pdf-extract\scripts\extract_pdf.py' with a portable/relative path or document how the user obtains the PDF-to-Markdown script.

Reconcile the conflicting validation guidance: the 'Validation Shortcut' tells Claude to run scripts/validate_skill.py --help while 'Quick Validation' says 'No local script validation step is required' — pick one and align both sections.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core extraction material (CSV schemas, field rules, target-region logic) is efficient, but a large block of generic boilerplate (Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Deterministic Output Rules, Completion Checklist, Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow) adds little skill-specific value and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-ready CSV schemas and field-mapping rules, but the example command references a Windows-specific non-portable path 'd:\SKILL\project\pdf-extract\scripts\extract_pdf.py' and the Quick Validation section contradicts the Validation Shortcut by stating no script step is required.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps exist (input decision, table-first detection, field extraction, output constraints with a three-item spot check) but the batch/destructive CSV-writing workflow lacks an explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, and the two validation sections give conflicting guidance.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Single well-organized file with clear section headers and no nested external references; however several boilerplate sections are inlined that add length without aiding discovery, keeping it just short of fully clean.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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, trigger-rich, and cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it in third person. It is a strong, well-targeted description with minimal conflict risk.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (experimental materials/instruments) and multiple concrete actions — extract into three CSV tables, handle PDF or PDF-derived text/Markdown, target materials/instrument fields — giving comprehensive coverage of what it does.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (extract materials/instrument info into three CSV tables) and 'when' ('use when a paper/report contains sections like ...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural trigger coverage listing section names users and papers actually use (Materials and Methods, Key Resources Table, Reagents, Antibodies, Consumables, Software, Equipment, Instruments, Reagent Preparation), plus file formats (PDFs, Markdown).	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche — extracting experimental materials into normalized CSVs from biomedical methods sections — with highly specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 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/pdf-extract-experimental-materials/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

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.