response-tone-polisher

Polish reviewer-response letters by softening defensive language, preserving factual meaning, and keeping responses professional, concise, and publication-appropriate.

Quality

66%

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/response-tone-polisher/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%

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

The skill is highly actionable with concrete commands and examples, but it is padded with generic process boilerplate and duplicates its own bundle files inline, with one broken reference path. Trimming the template sections and de-duplicating against the references would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Remove the generic templated sections (Response Template, Output Contract, Required Inputs, Lifecycle Status, User Checkpoints, Risk/Security Assessment) that are not specific to tone polishing; keep only skill-relevant guidance.

De-duplicate the inline "Tone Patterns Detected" and "Polite Academic Expressions" sections by pointing to references/tone_patterns.md and references/polite_expressions.json instead of repeating their contents.

Replace the non-existent references/examples/ reference with a real path or remove it, and fix the broken "When to Use" sentence ("Use this skill when the task needs Polishes response letters...") which is grammatically malformed template text.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The domain-specific content (tone patterns, transformation tables, CLI/API examples) is efficient, but roughly half the document is generic templated boilerplate (Response Template, Output Contract, Required Inputs, Lifecycle Status, Risk/Security checklists) that adds tokens without skill-specific value.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides copy-paste-ready executable commands ("python -m py_compile scripts/main.py", "python scripts/main.py --help"), concrete CLI invocations with real flags, a Python API example, and a complete output JSON schema.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A Workflow section and Quality Checklist exist, but the "Workflow" steps are generic process boilerplate ("Confirm the user objective...", "Return a structured result...") rather than a tone-polishing-specific sequence with integrated validation feedback loops.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Two real bundle files (references/polite_expressions.json, references/tone_patterns.md) are signaled in a References section, but the inline Tone Patterns and Polite Academic Expressions sections duplicate that bundle content, and the referenced references/examples/ path does not exist.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 specific and occupies a distinct niche, but it omits an explicit "Use when..." trigger and lacks common trigger-term variations like "peer review" or "rebuttal". Adding a trigger clause would lift the two capped dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when drafting responses to peer reviewers, rebuttal letters, or author response-to-reviewer comments."

Add common natural trigger terms ("peer review", "rebuttal letter", "response to reviewers") so users' phrasing matches the description.

Tighten "keeping responses professional, concise, and publication-appropriate" to a concrete action (e.g. "formatting responses for journal submission") to keep every clause action-oriented.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — "softening defensive language, preserving factual meaning, and keeping responses professional, concise, and publication-appropriate" — naming specific transformations rather than vague verbs.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly states what the skill does, but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger; per the rubric guideline a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	"reviewer-response letters" and "defensive language" are relevant natural terms, but common variations a user would say ("peer review", "rebuttal letter", "response to reviewers") are missing.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Polish reviewer-response letters" targets a clear niche (academic peer-review rebuttals) with distinct triggers, making conflict with other skills unlikely.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 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.