protocol-standardization

Standardize fragmented experimental steps into reproducible protocol documents when you need method organization, lab SOP drafting, or cross-operator reproducibility; missing parameters must be explicitly marked as "To be supplemented/Not provided".

Quality

75%

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/Protocol Design/protocol-standardization/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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.

A well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with a strong worked example and clear references to real bundle files. Its main weakness is conciseness, due to redundant governance/validation sections that could be tightened.

Suggestions

Consolidate the overlapping Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Input Validation, and Quick Validation sections into a single concise validation/checkpoints block to reduce redundancy.

Trim the inline worked example to its most illustrative excerpts and move the full input/output pair into references/guide.md, keeping the SKILL.md body closer to a lean overview.

Make the "Output Check" step concrete by specifying how to validate logical sequence and operability (e.g. an explicit checklist of pass/fail criteria and a fix-and-re-run step).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The worked example is justified and domain-specific, but several overlapping governance sections (Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints, Input Validation, Quick Validation) repeat similar guidance and could be consolidated, fitting anchor 3.	3 / 5
Actionability	A full input-to-output worked example, a concrete 4-step workflow, explicit parameter rules, and a template/naming convention give mostly executable guidance, with minor gaps such as the abstract "validate logical sequence" check.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 4-step workflow (Step Review, Parameter Completion, Standardization, Output Check) is clearly sequenced with checkpoints (User Checkpoints, Quick Validation), but no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop is present.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Two real one-level-deep bundle files (assets/protocol_template.md, references/guide.md) are clearly signaled and appropriately split out, though the body is somewhat dense with a long inline worked example plus multiple governance sections.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

82%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.

A strong, niche-specific description that clearly answers both what and when with concrete trigger phrases and low conflict risk. Its only weakness is specificity, since it centers on a single core action rather than enumerating several capabilities.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and one concrete action ("Standardize fragmented experimental steps into reproducible protocol documents") plus a marking rule, but does not list several distinct actions as required for anchor 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly states both what ("Standardize fragmented experimental steps into reproducible protocol documents") and when ("when you need method organization, lab SOP drafting, or cross-operator reproducibility") with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5 rather than the less-explicit anchor 4.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural lab-user phrases like "method organization", "lab SOP drafting", and "cross-operator reproducibility" give good keyword coverage, though a few synonyms (e.g. "protocol writing", "method standardization") are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The lab-protocol/SOP/reproducibility niche is clear with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against general documentation or code skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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/Protocol Design/protocol-standardization/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 8 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.