q-and-a-prep-partner

Predict challenging questions for presentations and prepare structured responses.

Quality

53%

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/Academic Writing/q-and-a-prep-partner/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

52%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 offers a clear, well-checkpointed workflow and a real one-level-deep bundle, but it is heavily padded with generic boilerplate sections and delegates the substantive Q&A-generation methodology to the script without explaining it, leaving conciseness and actionability as the weakest dimensions.

Suggestions

Remove generic boilerplate sections that add no Q&A-specific value (Risk Assessment table, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status with dates) or relocate them to a reference file.

Add concrete guidance for the core task — how to predict questions (e.g. by question type, audience, methodology section) and a response-framing template — instead of only delegating to scripts/main.py.

Cut the repeated 'See X above for related details' pointers and the restated-description 'When to Use' bullet to tighten token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~200-line body is noticeably verbose with several padded boilerplate sections (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status with review dates) and repeated 'See X above for related details' cross-references, matching the 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary padded sections' anchor rather than the mostly-efficient anchor at 3.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands (py_compile, --help, usage examples with --abstract/--field) and a real parameters list, but the core methodology for actually predicting questions and structuring responses is absent from the body and only delegated to scripts/main.py, fitting the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section gives a clear 5-step sequence with an explicit validation step (step 2) and a fallback/error-recovery step (step 5), plus a Quick Check; the operation is not destructive or batch, so the cap-at-3 rule does not apply, placing it at 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present' rather than the gaps-present anchor at 3.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Bundle files (references/audit-reference.md and scripts/main.py) are real and referenced one level deep via a clearly signaled References section, with a sectioned body; minor duplication of audit commands across body and reference and inlined boilerplate keep it just below the well-split anchor at 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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 is third-person and states a clear, specific purpose with two concrete actions, but it omits any 'when to use' trigger guidance and lacks natural keyword synonyms, which together cap completeness and trigger-term quality at 3.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers, e.g. 'Use when preparing to defend a presentation, anticipating audience questions, or rehearsing Q&A for a talk or paper.'

Broaden trigger-term coverage with natural synonyms users actually say: 'Q&A', 'rehearsal', 'practice questions', 'defend my talk', 'audience questions'.

Consider naming an additional concrete capability (e.g. framing responses, ranking questions by likelihood) to lift specificity from 3 toward 4.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (presentations) and two concrete actions — 'Predict challenging questions' and 'prepare structured responses' — but coverage is not comprehensive, matching the 'domain + 1-2 concrete actions' anchor rather than the several-actions anchor at 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' but no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3 rather than reaching the both-what-and-when anchor at 4.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant keywords like 'challenging questions' and 'presentations', but misses common natural variations a user would say ('Q&A', 'rehearsal', 'practice questions', 'defend my talk'), fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing synonyms' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a fairly clear niche (presentation Q&A prep) with minor overlap risk against general presentation skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' better than the generic-overlap anchor at 3.	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/Academic Writing/q-and-a-prep-partner/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.