study-limitations-drafter

Use study limitations drafter for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries.

Quality

27%

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/study-limitations-drafter/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

30%

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

The skill body is heavily padded with generic templated sections that restate guidance Claude already knows, hurting token efficiency, while the genuinely useful executable commands and bundled script are buried among them. Workflow sequencing and a real one-level reference are present, but validation feedback loops and content splitting are incomplete.

Suggestions

Remove or consolidate the generic boilerplate sections (Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Output Contract, Failure Handling, User Checkpoints) that restate obvious guidance, keeping only skill-specific content.

Replace the one-line example fragment with a complete, copy-paste-ready invocation showing input, output, and the resulting limitation paragraph.

Add a true output-validation feedback loop (e.g. verify generated statements against the input issue list and re-run on mismatch) rather than only a py_compile parse check.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is highly padded with templated boilerplate (Risk Assessment, Security Checklist, Evaluation Criteria, Lifecycle Status, Output Requirements, Output Contract, Failure Handling, etc.) that restates obvious guidance Claude already knows; closest to 'Verbose; explains concepts Claude knows; padded with unnecessary context'.	1 / 3
Actionability	It provides concrete executable commands (`python -m py_compile scripts/main.py`, `python scripts/main.py --help`) and a real bundled script with args, plus a parameters table, but the core drafting guidance is abstract and the example is a one-line fragment rather than a complete, copy-paste ready invocation.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Workflow section lists a clear 5-step sequence with validation (step 2 stop-early) and a fallback path, but the verification step references py_compile only as a parse check rather than a true output-validation feedback loop, so checkpoints are present but incomplete.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A single one-level-deep reference exists and is real (references/audit-reference.md) with a clear link, but the body keeps large amounts of inline boilerplate that should be split out, so structure is present but not cleanly organized.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Description

25%

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 states the skill's purpose but is abstract and lacks both concrete actions and any explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and trigger-term quality. It distinguishes a niche but remains generic enough to risk overlap with similar writing/structure skills.

Suggestions

Replace abstract phrasing with concrete actions, e.g. 'Drafts professional study limitation paragraphs for manuscripts, grant proposals, and peer-review responses from a list of design flaws.'

Add an explicit trigger clause: 'Use when writing a study limitations section, a manuscript's limitations paragraph, or a grant risk assessment.'

Include natural user-facing keywords (study limitations, manuscript, grant proposal, peer review) so the skill triggers reliably.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain (academic writing workflows) and some abstract qualities (structured execution, explicit assumptions, clear output boundaries) but lists no concrete actions like 'draft', 'generate', or 'word limitation sections'; closest to 'Names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive'.	2 / 3
Completeness	Per the guideline, a missing explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause caps completeness at 2, and here 'when' is entirely absent — the description only states what, with no trigger guidance at all.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The phrase 'academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries' is abstract phrasing users would rarely utter; it lacks natural trigger terms like 'limitations section', 'manuscript', 'study limitations', or 'grant'.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Academic writing workflows... structured execution, explicit assumptions' is a niche but generic enough to overlap with other academic-writing or structured-output skills; it is somewhat specific but could still conflict with similar skills.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 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
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.