style-journal-rewrite

Rewrite drafts according to target writing style or target journal format. Triggers when user says "rewrite in XX style", "match this tone", "format for XX journal", "rewrite following this format". Input can be .docx / .md / .txt or conversation text.

Quality

83%

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

Quality

Content

75%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.

A well-organized, actionable skill body with clear branching, real bundle files, and a verification checklist. The main improvement area is tightening the inline justification and adding an inline validate-fix-retry loop for the fragile DOCX field-code operations.

Suggestions

Add an inline validate->fix->retry checkpoint inside Path B/C (e.g. after B3 field-code detection and before B4 visual formatting) rather than relying solely on the end-of-workflow Section 5 checklist, to turn the QC into a true feedback loop for destructive DOCX edits.

Trim justificatory asides (e.g. the 'avoiding inconsistencies from manual Unicode superscript assembly' rationale in C3) so the body leans on Claude's competence and keeps only decision-relevant detail.

Provide a short copy-paste-ready python-docx snippet for the B4/C4 visual-formatting step (setting font.name/font.size via para.runs and spacing via para.paragraph_format) instead of a directive description, to push actionability toward fully executable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's competence (script invocations, parameter tables, critical-constraint callouts), with a few justificatory asides such as 'citation formatting is driven by Zotero/EndNote engines, avoiding inconsistencies from manual Unicode superscript assembly' that could be trimmed; sits at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation'.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable commands (e.g. 'scripts/remove_heading_numbers.py <input> <output>', 'convert_ref_format.py --ref-list-style' with --range-joiner/--group-separator) and explicit python-docx entry points (para.runs, font.name, para.paragraph_format), but B4/C4 describe the API at a directive level rather than copy-paste-ready code, leaving minor gaps versus the level-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequenced branching (Path A/B/C) with a Section 5 QC checklist and explicit error-handling/validation guidance, satisfying the destructive-operation validation requirement; it does not reach 5 because the QC is a post-hoc checklist rather than an inline validate->fix->re-validate feedback loop during the fragile DOCX/field-code steps.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Good structure with well-signaled one-level-deep references (references/style-profile-extraction.md, journal-format-extraction.md, rewriting-criteria.md) and separate scripts, all verified to exist; sits at 4 rather than 5 because the main body still inlines substantial per-path operational detail that keeps it from being a pure overview.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

91%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, well-structured description that clearly states capability and triggers with natural phrasing and file extensions. The only soft spot is mild overlap risk with sibling citation/reference skills, which the body (not the description) disambiguates.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several concrete actions ('Rewrite drafts according to target writing style or target journal format', 'match this tone', 'format for XX journal') with input formats enumerated, but the action verbs are somewhat repetitive (rewrite/format) leaving minor coverage gaps versus the level-5 'multiple distinct concrete actions' anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' ('Rewrite drafts according to target writing style or target journal format') and 'when' ('Triggers when user says...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the level-5 anchor; it does not fall to 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit with multiple quoted triggers.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural trigger phrases users would actually say ('rewrite in XX style', 'match this tone', 'format for XX journal', 'rewrite following this format') plus synonyms and file extensions (.docx / .md / .txt), matching the level-5 anchor that calls for natural terms including synonyms and extensions.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The style/journal-format niche is mostly distinct with specific triggers, but 'format for XX journal' and reference-style adjustment could overlap with related citation-formatting skills, so it sits at 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the fully-distinct level-5 anchor.	4 / 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/Academic Writing/style-journal-rewrite/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~22 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.