revision-strategy-planner

Builds prioritized manuscript revision plans for major or minor revisions by separating comments that require experiments, analyses, clarification, restructuring, or wording changes.

Quality

61%

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/revision-strategy-planner/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 is well-structured with clear sequencing, validation, and well-signaled references, but it is notably verbose due to heavy repetition of the same triage/routing framework and would be more actionable with a worked example.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated triage/routing/feasibility lists into a single canonical section and have other sections reference it, cutting substantial duplication across Task, Core Function, Execution, Mandatory Output Structure, and Hard Rules.

Add one short worked example (a 2-3 comment sample triaged through to the A-J output) so the method is demonstrable rather than only described.

Remove the inlined Hard Rules duplication and point to references/hard-rules.md so the overview stays lean and the reference remains the single source of truth.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The same triage, routing, and feasibility lists recur across Task, Important Distinctions, Core Function, Execution, Mandatory Output Structure, Hard Rules, and Quality Standard, producing several padded, redundant sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	A concrete output template (sections A-J) and eight routing categories give usable structure, but the actual triage method is delegated to references with no worked example, leaving the guidance more framework than executable method.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear nine-step sequence includes an explicit front-loaded validation gate (Step 1, Input Validation, Output A) and a feedback loop for requesting missing material, with only minor checkpoint gaps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Seven reference files are each introduced with a clear purpose and 'Use when' signal, one level deep, and all verified present; the main gap is that hard-rules content is duplicated inline rather than kept solely in references/hard-rules.md.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 clear, low-conflict niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps its completeness and leaves some natural trigger terms implicit.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when planning a major or minor manuscript revision, triaging reviewer/editor comments, or deciding which requested experiments are necessary.'

Include more natural user phrasing such as 'reviewer comments', 'rebuttal', and 'resubmission' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Sharpen the core action from 'Builds prioritized manuscript revision plans' to a more concrete verb set so the primary capability reads as an operation rather than an output.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete action categories ('experiments, analyses, clarification, restructuring, or wording changes') plus major/minor revision planning, but the 'Builds prioritized manuscript revision plans' framing stays mildly abstract rather than naming tool-level operations.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' clause; 'for major or minor revisions' is only a weakly implied when, so per the rubric completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains natural terms a user would say ('manuscript revision plans', 'major or minor revisions', 'comments') but omits common variations like 'rebuttal', 'reviewer comments', and 'resubmit'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clearly defined niche (academic manuscript revision triage for major/minor revisions) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/revision-strategy-planner/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~10 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.