CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

study-objective-refiner

Refines broad, vague, or aspirational biomedical research objectives into clear, bounded, measurable, executable, and downstream-ready study objective statements. Always use this skill when a user has a general aim such as “explore a mechanism,” “study prognosis,” “investigate biomarkers,” or “look at treatment response,” but the objective is still too broad, non-operational, or too ambiguous to support protocol framing, design selection, analysis planning, or hypothesis design. Never assume that polished wording alone means the objective is actionable. Focus first on objective type, missing operational elements, scope discipline, and downstream-ready formulation.

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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.

Well-structured and actionable with excellent progressive disclosure via real, clearly-mapped reference files. The main weakness is redundancy across Core Function, Execution, Output Structure, and the two "should not" lists, plus the absence of a worked input→output example.

Suggestions

Consolidate overlapping sections: Core Function, Execution Steps 1–9, and Mandatory Output Structure A–J describe the same work three times — merge or cross-reference them to cut repetition.

Remove the duplicated negative guidance: "What This Skill Should Not Do" repeats the earlier "This skill should not" list; keep a single canonical version.

Add one worked input→output example (a vague objective transformed into plain-language, protocol-ready, and downstream-ready forms) to make the actionability concrete and cover the common case.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Individual sections are lean bullet lists and it avoids explaining basic biomedical concepts, but Core Function (10 items), Execution Steps 1–9, Mandatory Output Structure A–J, Hard Rules (14), and two separate "should not" lists substantially overlap and could be consolidated.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, specific instruction-only guidance — explicit audit elements (population, exposure, outcome, comparison, time horizon), named structure types, and a fixed output scaffold — but a worked input→output refinement example is missing, leaving the common case uncovered.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 9-step sequence maps each reference module to its output section, with assessment checkpoints (Step 8 measurability, Section J risk-of-misframing); minor validation gaps and no explicit retry loop keep it just below 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All ten referenced files exist in references/ and are signaled one level deep with explicit usage triggers (e.g. "objective-type-taxonomy.md → use when ... Section B"), giving a clear overview that points cleanly into well-organized detail files.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

96%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.

A strong description: third-person voice, explicit what-and-when, and natural trigger phrases quoted verbatim. It is slightly long but every clause earns its place, with only minor overlap risk against adjacent research-planning skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions and focus areas — "Refines ... into clear, bounded, measurable, executable, and downstream-ready study objective statements" plus "Focus first on objective type, missing operational elements, scope discipline, and downstream-ready formulation" — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill does.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Refines ... into ... study objective statements") and when ("Always use this skill when a user has a general aim such as ..."), with concrete trigger phrases; the explicit "Use when"-style clause avoids the completeness cap.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Embeds natural user phrases as triggers — "explore a mechanism," "study prognosis," "investigate biomarkers," "look at treatment response" — exactly the wording a user would say, with good synonym coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "biomedical research objective" niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, but objective-refinement could marginally overlap with general research-planning or writing skills, so minor overlap risk remains.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
aipoch/medical-research-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.