peer-review-response-drafter

Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.

Quality

46%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/peer-review-response-drafter/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

35%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill provides runnable commands and a clear file structure, but the body is bloated with generic scaffold boilerplate and references a missing examples/ directory while keeping content inline that belongs in references. Trimming boilerplate and fixing the dangling reference would meaningfully improve it.

Suggestions

Cut generic scaffold sections (Lifecycle Status, generic Evaluation Criteria/Test Cases, Risk Assessment, Output Requirements, Response Template) that do not add domain-specific value beyond what Claude already knows.

Remove or create the referenced references/examples/ directory so every cited bundle path resolves.

Tighten the workflow steps into concrete drafting-specific checkpoints (e.g., verify every reviewer comment has a matched response, validate tone against tone_guide.md) instead of abstract verbs like 'Confirm the user objective'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~250-line body is padded with generic scaffold boilerplate (Lifecycle Status, Risk Assessment, generic Evaluation Criteria, repeated near-verbatim restatements of the description) rather than domain-specific guidance Claude lacks, matching the 'verbose... padded with unnecessary context' anchor.	1 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete copy-pasteable commands (py_compile, --help, a sample --input run) and a real Parameters table, but the core drafting guidance is delegated to bundled references rather than given inline, so it is concrete yet incomplete.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Numbered workflow steps, a fallback path, and a validation checkpoint (py_compile) are present, but the steps are abstract ('Confirm the user objective', 'Validate the request') without task-specific validation feedback loops for the drafting operation itself.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References are mostly one level deep and two referenced files (response_templates.md, tone_guide.md) are real, but the body references a non-existent references/examples/ directory and carries heavy inline boilerplate that should be external, so structure is present but not cleanly organized.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

57%

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, distinctive niche and states the core action, but it stops short of listing multiple specific actions and omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance. Adding natural trigger phrasing and a couple more concrete actions would lift specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause naming natural user phrasings such as 'reviewer comments', 'rebuttal letter', or 'author response'.

List multiple concrete actions beyond drafting (e.g., point-by-point addressing of comments, tone adjustment, citation of manuscript locations) to raise specificity.

Remove the dangling literal word "Trigger." which reads as scaffold residue rather than natural trigger language.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes "Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters" — names the domain plus one concrete action (drafting response letters), but does not list multiple specific actions as required for a 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	States what the skill does but lacks any explicit 'Use when...' clause; the appended "Trigger." is not equivalent trigger guidance, so per guideline completeness is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Only real keyword is "peer review response letters"; the literal "Trigger." is not natural user phrasing, and common variations (rebuttal letter, reviewer response, reviewer comments) are absent, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"peer review response letters" is a clearly bounded niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor rather than the more generic level-2 example.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

87%

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 — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Commit: 7cc5680

Reviewed: 3 days 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.