CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

pubmed-topic-recommend

Generate ~5 actionable research topic recommendations by querying PubMed E-utilities; use when a user provides a research direction/constraints and needs evidence-backed topic ideas quickly.

60

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/pubmed-topic-recommend/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

60%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 skill's PubMed-specific core is well-structured and actionable with real referenced bundle files, but it is dragged down by a large amount of generic boilerplate that explains concepts Claude already knows. Removing the boilerplate and aligning the asserted --help output with the real script would lift conciseness and actionability.

Suggestions

Delete or collapse the generic boilerplate sections (Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Deterministic Output Rules, Output Contract, Validation and Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Completion Checklist, Quick Validation, Scope Reminder) that restate process knowledge Claude already has.

Replace the asserted `--help` expected output (lines 156-160) with the script's actual behavior — it writes to output/ rather than pubmed_topic_recommend_result.md — or remove the fabricated example entirely.

Convert plain backtick reference paths (e.g. `references/pubmed_api.md`) into markdown links and move any remaining query-construction detail into the reference file so the overview stays a lean pointer.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The PubMed-specific sections are efficient, but a large block of generic boilerplate (Required Inputs, Recommended Workflow, Deterministic Output Rules, Output Contract, Validation/Safety Rules, Failure Handling, Completion Checklist, Quick Validation, Scope Reminder) restates process concepts Claude already knows, making it noticeably verbose.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides mostly executable guidance — a real run command ("python scripts/run_topic_recommendation.py"), named config parameters, and specific query-construction rules — with minor gaps such as an asserted --help output that does not match the actual script.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequenced Recommended Workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and a Completion Checklist is present, though the validate->fix->retry feedback loop is checklist-style rather than tightly bound to the script's real behavior.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Real bundle files exist and are referenced at one level of depth (references/pubmed_api.md, scripts/run_topic_recommendation.py) with section headers, though the overview is bloated by generic boilerplate and references are plain backtick paths rather than link-style navigation.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

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, well-targeted description that clearly states both the capability and the explicit use-when trigger with natural phrasing. Specificity is the only real gap, as it names only a couple of concrete actions rather than a comprehensive list.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the PubMed domain and 1-2 concrete actions ("Generate ~5 actionable research topic recommendations by querying PubMed E-utilities"), but does not list a comprehensive set of specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (generate ~5 topic recommendations via PubMed E-utilities) and when ("use when a user provides a research direction/constraints and needs evidence-backed topic ideas quickly") with concrete trigger phrasing.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say ("research topic recommendations", "research direction", "evidence-backed topic ideas") with good coverage, though a few common synonyms are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear PubMed-specific niche ("PubMed E-utilities", "research topic recommendations") with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
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.