CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

response-letter

Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

The skill body is well-structured with a clear numbered workflow, explicit user checkpoints, and clean one-level-deep references to real bundle files. Its main weakness is generic boilerplate sections and the absence of any executable code or script path for actually producing the .docx deliverable.

Suggestions

Remove or drastically condense the generic boilerplate sections ('When Not to Use', 'Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', 'Quick Validation') that restate what Claude already assumes, keeping only response-letter-specific guidance.

Add an executable example or script invocation showing how the .docx is actually generated from the template (e.g., a python-docx snippet or a command), so guidance is copy-paste ready rather than declarative.

Tie the 'Quick Validation' checks to response-letter-specific fields (e.g., every R{n}-{i} comment has a Response + Changes in Text block with page/paragraph/line) instead of abstract 'core fields'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with well-organized sections, but boilerplate like 'When Not to Use', 'Required Inputs', 'Output Contract', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', and 'Quick Validation' are generic and restate what Claude already assumes, adding tokens that don't earn their place.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete layout rules and a clear example workflow, but there is no executable code or script invocation for generating the .docx — the bundled template is named but no command or code path shows how to produce output, so guidance is specific but not copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Example Usage lists a clearly numbered five-step sequence, and four explicit user checkpoints plus a Quick Validation section provide validation feedback loops for a sensitive (editor-facing) operation, satisfying the top anchor.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview pointing one level deep to real bundled files — references/guide.md and assets/review_response_template.docx — both clearly signaled in Dependencies and Implementation Details, with concise in-skill content and no nested reference chains.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 concrete, action-oriented, and clearly distinguishes both what the skill does and when to use it with natural trigger phrasing. It is third-person and free of fluff.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'organize reviewer comments', 'generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter', 'maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line)' — matching the top anchor for multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly states what it does (organize comments and generate a .docx response letter mapping changes to locations) and when to use it via an explicit 'Use when...' clause covering three scenarios.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are well covered: 'revising a manuscript', 'replying to peer-review feedback', 'preparing internal review responses' — terms a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The peer-review response letter niche with .docx output and page/paragraph/line change mapping is distinct and unlikely to conflict with other skills' triggers.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.