results-section-structurer

Organizes biomedical figures, analyses, and result blocks into a clear Results section structure with disciplined narrative ordering and evidence-aware presentation.

Quality

57%

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 ./awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/results-section-structurer/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 content has a clear workflow and good reference-file disclosure, but it is heavily verbose with redundant sections and lacks concrete worked examples or exact marker syntax. Trimming repetition and adding an example output would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Collapse the redundant Task, Core Function, Hard Rules, 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and Quality Standard sections into a single concise rules block to remove padding and reduce token cost.

Provide one concrete worked example (sample figure list → recommended Results order → annotated A–I output) so the mandatory structure is unambiguously executable.

Specify the exact 'citation-support marker' format (and an example PubMed search query) inline or in the referenced rules file, since the marker is invoked throughout but never defined.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~275-line body restates the same guidance across Task, Core Function, Hard Rules, 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and Quality Standard sections, with noticeably verbose and padded overlap rather than lean instruction.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides a concrete 9-step sequence and a mandatory A–I output scaffold, but lacks executable specifics such as an example structured output, a worked figure-list-to-structure example, or the exact syntax of the repeatedly-invoked 'citation-support marker'.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear sequenced workflow (Steps 1–9) with an early clarify-before-structuring checkpoint (Step 1) and an uncertainty-flag checkpoint (Step 8); non-destructive task so the destructive cap does not apply, with only minor validation gaps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Lists 7 real one-level-deep reference files under 'Reference Module Integration' each with a one-line purpose (all confirmed present on disk), and the body acts as an overview; the inlined body is longer than ideal but structure and signaling are good.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

62%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 specific and occupies a distinct, low-conflict niche, but it lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger clause and could broaden its natural trigger-term coverage. Adding a 'Use when...' sentence with concrete user phrases would lift completeness and trigger quality.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to structure, order, or reorganize a biomedical Results section, or is unsure how to sequence figures, cohort characteristics, and validation analyses.'

Broaden trigger terms with synonyms users naturally say ('reorganize my Results', 'figure order', 'Results outline', 'paragraph roles') to improve trigger-term quality.

Add one or two more concrete operations (e.g. 'marks citation-needing statements', 'requests missing study materials') to push specificity toward comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names several concrete actions and objects ('Organizes biomedical figures, analyses, and result blocks into a clear Results section structure with disciplined narrative ordering and evidence-aware presentation'), but actions sit at an organizing level rather than a fully enumerated concrete-operation list.	4 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' (organizes figures/analyses/result blocks into a Results structure) but has no explicit 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the rubric guideline.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms like 'Results section', 'figures', 'analyses', and 'result blocks', but misses common synonyms/variations and lacks the full breadth of trigger phrasing users might say.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche — biomedical manuscript Results-section structuring — with domain-specific anchors ('biomedical figures', 'result blocks', 'Results section') giving minimal conflict risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 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: awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/results-section-structurer/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

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.