slide-deck-for-lab-meeting

Structures research progress into focused and actionable slides for lab meetings or project reviews without inventing missing content.

Quality

65%

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/slide-deck-for-lab-meeting/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 skill body has a clear sequenced workflow, a defined mandatory output structure, and a genuinely well-wired reference bundle. Its main flaws are pervasive redundancy (Task/Core Function, Scope Boundary/What This Skill Should Not Do, body Hard Rules vs the hard-rules reference) and purely abstract guidance with no worked example of a good slide structure.

Suggestions

Delete the duplicated sections: fold "Core Function" into "Task", fold "What This Skill Should Not Do" into "Scope Boundary", and replace the inlined "Hard Rules" section with a short pointer to references/hard-rules.md.

Add one brief worked example (e.g., a 10-slide structure for a troubleshooting-focused weekly meeting) so the abstract steps and output format become concrete.

Convert guidance like "decide how much emphasis" into specific heuristics (e.g., "2 background slides max for a weekly progress meeting; lead with data for PI updates") to strengthen actionability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body contains several substantially duplicated sections: "Core Function" restates the "Task" list almost verbatim, the "Hard Rules" section duplicates references/hard-rules.md word-for-word, and "What This Skill Should Not Do" repeats the "Scope Boundary" not-for list. This matches anchor 2 (several unnecessary or padded sections) rather than 3, where padding would be occasional.	2 / 5
Actionability	Steps 1-9 and the mandatory A-I output structure provide concrete, specific directives for an instruction-only skill, but all guidance remains abstract: there is no worked example of a resulting slide flow and no concrete heuristic (e.g., how many background slides, what a strong next-step slide contains). This sits at anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete, missing key details) rather than 4.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The nine execution steps are clearly sequenced, with an input-sufficiency gate in Step 1 ("do not immediately produce a full deck structure") and a validation checkpoint in output section A ("Input Match Check"). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no explicit error-recovery or revision loop after clarification.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	All seven referenced files exist, are one level deep with no further nesting, and each is cited in the body with guidance on when to use it — good structure overall. It is not a 5 because the body inlines the full hard-rules content (duplicating references/hard-rules.md verbatim) instead of deferring to it, so content splitting is not fully appropriate.	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 concise, in third person, and names a clear niche with an honesty constraint ("without inventing missing content"). Its main weaknesses are the single-action framing, missing common synonyms like "deck" and "presentation", and the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when preparing slides for a lab meeting, weekly progress update, PI review, or project review."

Enumerate the concrete capabilities the skill provides (e.g., selects slide balance between background, data, open problems, and next steps; frames discussion-ready next-step slides) instead of the single verb "Structures".

Include natural synonyms users would say, such as "slide deck", "presentation", "project update", and "PI update".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Structures research progress into focused and actionable slides" names the domain (research progress, lab meetings, project reviews) but delivers only one main action verb rather than a list of concrete capabilities, matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions. It is not a 4 because there is no enumeration of several specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	The description has a clear "what" (structuring research progress into focused, actionable slides) and an explicit when-context ("for lab meetings or project reviews"), so both are present. It is not a 5 because it lacks a concrete trigger phrase like "Use when...", leaving the 'when' less explicit than anchor 5 requires.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Relevant natural terms are present ("research progress", "slides", "lab meetings", "project reviews"), but common variations users would actually say are missing, such as "deck", "presentation", "PI update", or "weekly meeting". This matches anchor 3 (relevant keywords, missing synonyms) rather than 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The lab-meeting/project-review research-update niche is well distinguished from most skills, with only minor overlap risk against generic presentation or slide-design skills. It falls just short of anchor 5's fully distinct, minimal-conflict standard because "slides" alone could plausibly compete with a general presentation skill.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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/slide-deck-for-lab-meeting/SKILL.md
Commit: 686e09d

Reviewed: 13 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.