target-journal-matcher

Matches your study to appropriate journals based on topic, design, and evidence strength. Use when deciding where to submit a manuscript, comparing journal options by impact factor vs scope fit vs method tolerance, or finding a realistic submission target after a rejection. Also triggers on "where should I submit this paper", "which journal is best for my study", "find journals for my manuscript", "is this a good fit for [journal]", or "I need a journal with IF around X".

Quality

79%

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 ./awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/target-journal-matcher/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

63%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-structured, actionable instruction skill with a clear workflow and concrete scoring rubric, undermined by repeated guidance (tier labels and IF disclaimer stated multiple times) and by a complete failure to reference or surface the substantial bundled journal database, scoring config, and matching script.

Suggestions

Reference the bundle files explicitly: point to references/journals.json for the journal database, references/scoring_weights.json for scoring thresholds, and scripts/main.py for programmatic matching, instead of inlining overlapping tables and frameworks.

De-duplicate the tier-label instruction and the IF-verification disclaimer; state each once (e.g., in Hard Rules and Step 4 respectively) and remove the redundant Calibration Note section.

Add one fully worked example (manuscript description → scored tiered table → primary recommendation) to lift actionability and demonstrate the end-to-end workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and free of basic-concept padding, but repeats the same guidance multiple times: the tier-label mandate appears three times (Step 2, Step 4) and the IF-verification disclaimer appears in Step 4, Hard Rules, and a dedicated Calibration Note.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides a concrete, copy-ready scoring framework with explicit point allocations (Topic overlap 0-3, Method acceptance 0-3, Impact realism 0-2, Practical fit 0-2), tier thresholds, a defined output table schema, and a verbatim mandatory disclaimer, with only minor gaps (no fully worked example output).	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence (Characterize → Generate Candidates → Score → Deliver) with soft checkpoints ("ask one focused clarifying question", mismatch flagging, rejection-strategy fallback), but lacks a formal validate→fix→retry loop or checklist.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is sectioned well, but it references none of the provided bundle files (references/journals.json, fields.json, scoring_weights.json, scripts/main.py) and inlines a Key-Domains journal table and scoring framework that overlap with those bundled files, leaving the bundle orphaned and un-navigable.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

95%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-constructed description that clearly states the skill's purpose and provides rich, natural trigger phrases covering many user phrasings. The only minor weakness is that the concrete action list is somewhat consolidated into the use-case clause rather than enumerated distinctly.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the core action ("Matches your study to appropriate journals based on topic, design, and evidence strength") plus supporting actions embedded in the use-cases (comparing options, finding a submission target), giving several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (match study to journals by topic/design/evidence strength) and when ("Use when deciding where to submit..." plus concrete trigger phrases), matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural-language triggers including synonyms and phrasings users actually say ("where should I submit this paper", "which journal is best for my study", "find journals for my manuscript", "I need a journal with IF around X").	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (journal submission targeting) with highly distinct triggers, making conflict with unrelated skills minimal.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 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: awesome-med-research-skills/Academic Writing/target-journal-matcher/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~10 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.