CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

systematic-review

Orchestrates a systematic review and meta-analysis workflow following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, from protocol development through multi-database search, screening, data extraction, and evidence synthesis. Use when conducting evidence-based reviews, meta-analyses, or scoping revi...

66

Quality

80%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Academic Writing/systematic-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

67%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 body is a well-structured meta-skill overview with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit scope-validation guidance. It is light on runnable specifics (no code/commands) and inlines some detail that a dedicated reference file could offload.

Suggestions

Add concrete, executable guidance for at least one stage (e.g. a sample PubMed MeSH query string or a code snippet for fitting a random-effects meta-analysis) to lift actionability.

Insert explicit validation checkpoints between workflow steps (e.g. "Confirm deduplication complete and counts logged before screening") to strengthen the feedback loop.

Move the PRISMA 2020 checklist mapping or database-specific query construction into a reference file and link to it, keeping SKILL.md a lean overview.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficiently organized into scoped sections and assumes domain competence, but several best-practice and output-format lists are somewhat padded and could be tightened.

4 / 5

Actionability

The workflow lists concrete stages, named tools (RoB 2, GRADE, PubMed), and metrics, but provides no executable code, commands, or step-by-step runnable procedures, leaving guidance at a directive level.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear seven-step sequenced workflow with explicit input-validation gating at the end; minor gaps are that inter-step validation checkpoints between stages are implicit rather than explicit.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure as a meta-skill overview that signals integration points to three specialized skills and lists outputs; no bundle files are present, and some detail (e.g. database query construction, PRISMA checklist mapping) is inlined rather than referenced out.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 strong: it states concrete capabilities, uses third person, and provides an explicit "Use when..." clause with natural trigger terms. Trigger-term coverage could add common synonyms like "literature review" or "systematic search".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions spanning the full pipeline (protocol development, multi-database search, screening, data extraction, evidence synthesis) with comprehensive coverage of the domain.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (orchestrates a systematic review/meta-analysis workflow from protocol through synthesis) and when ("Use when conducting evidence-based reviews, meta-analyses, or scoping reviews") with concrete triggers.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases ("evidence-based reviews", "meta-analyses", "scoping reviews") are present, but common synonyms a user might say (e.g. "literature review", "systematic search") are only implied.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear PRISMA 2020 systematic-review niche with distinct trigger language; minimal overlap risk with adjacent single-purpose skills.

5 / 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.