sop-writer

Write GCP-compliant standard operating procedures for laboratory, clinical, or research workflows; use when a reproducible SOP with roles, steps, and control points is required.

Quality

73%

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 ./scientific-skills/Protocol Design/sop-writer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 is well-structured with real, verified bundle files and concrete validation commands, but is held back by heavy templated redundancy across several overlapping governance sections. Consolidating the duplicated error/failure/validation sections would meaningfully improve token efficiency.

Suggestions

Merge the overlapping 'Error Handling', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', 'When Not to Use', and 'Output Contract' sections into a single concise rules block to remove redundant stop/ask/partial-output guidance.

Trim the generic template blocks ('Security Checklist', 'Evaluation Criteria / Test Cases', 'Lifecycle Status') that restate standard precautions Claude already applies, keeping only skill-specific notes.

Tighten the abstract Workflow verbs ('Confirm', 'Validate', 'Return') into concrete, executable steps that reference the bundled script and the Required Inputs fields by name.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose with substantial section redundancy — 'Error Handling', 'Failure Handling', 'Input Validation', 'When Not to Use', and 'Output Contract' restate the same stop/ask/partial-output rules — and generic template blocks (Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status) add padding Claude does not need.	2 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands ('python -m py_compile scripts/main.py', 'python scripts/main.py --help'), a real bundled script with a documented --help path, a Required Inputs table, and a fixed Response Template, with only minor gaps in the abstract workflow phrasing.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced with checkpoints (step 2 stop-early on out-of-scope, step 5 fallback on failure) plus a Quick Check / Audit-Ready validation block; the steps themselves are somewhat abstract, which is a minor validation gap rather than an absent one.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Structure is good with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (references/audit-reference.md, confirmed to exist) and a bundled script; minor organization gaps come from the large number of overlapping inline sections that could be consolidated.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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, third-person, and clearly states both what the skill does and when to invoke it, with strong domain-specific triggers. Minor gains are possible by enumerating actions more discretely and adding a couple of common synonyms.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('GCP-compliant standard operating procedures for laboratory, clinical, or research workflows') and several concrete actions ('reproducible SOP with roles, steps, and control points'), but the actions are bundled into one phrase rather than enumerated, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Write GCP-compliant standard operating procedures...') and when ('use when a reproducible SOP with roles, steps, and control points is required') with a concrete trigger clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural-term coverage ('standard operating procedures', 'SOP', 'GCP-compliant', 'laboratory, clinical, or research workflows') with the common synonym 'SOP' included, though a few likely user phrasings ('write a protocol', 'procedure document') are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche (GCP-compliant SOPs for lab/clinical/research workflows) with domain-specific triggers that would rarely collide with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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: scientific-skills/Protocol Design/sop-writer/SKILL.md
Commit: 63c61d3

Reviewed: 4 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.