title-and-abstract-optimizer

Optimizes manuscript titles and abstracts for information density, factual accuracy, and submission fit in biomedical research writing.

Quality

56%

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/title-and-abstract-optimizer/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

60%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 well-structured and highly actionable with a clear workflow and real reference files, but is notably verbose due to heavy duplication of the same anti-overclaim constraints across multiple sections.

Suggestions

Consolidate the redundant constraint sections (Scope Boundary, Important Distinctions, Hard Rules, What This Skill Should Not Do, Quality Standard) into a single concise rules block to remove padding.

Replace inlined hard-rules content in the body with a pointer to references/hard-rules.md to avoid duplication and sharpen progressive disclosure.

Format reference paths as markdown links (e.g., [hard-rules.md](references/hard-rules.md)) and add one short worked title/abstract example to raise actionability.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The ~250-line body restates the same constraints multiple times across 'Scope Boundary', 'Important Distinctions', 'Hard Rules', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Quality Standard', producing several padded, duplicative sections.	2 / 5
Actionability	For an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, executable guidance: an 8-step execution sequence and a mandatory 9-section (A-I) output structure specifying exactly what each section must contain, with only minor gaps (no worked example).	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 8-step sequence with an explicit clarify-before-optimizing gate, an input-match check, and a flag-uncertainties step; checkpoints are mostly present, though final re-validation against hard rules is implicit rather than an explicit loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	All five reference files exist and are listed in a dedicated integration section with per-file purpose, one level deep; minor gaps are that references use plain backtick paths rather than links and the body inlines content duplicated in references/hard-rules.md.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

53%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 clearly states what the skill does and occupies a distinct niche, but omits any explicit 'when to use' trigger guidance and uses somewhat formal language over natural user phrasing.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when polishing a manuscript title or abstract, tightening an abstract for submission, or improving title/abstract clarity without overstating findings').

Include natural-language trigger terms users would actually say, such as 'polish my title', 'tighten my abstract', or 'make my abstract editor-friendly'.

Surface a few more discrete concrete actions (e.g., 'diagnose weak titles, surface study design, and tighten abstracts') to lift specificity toward a 4-5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('biomedical research writing') and two concrete actions ('Optimizes manuscript titles and abstracts') along with specific objectives, but does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	Provides a clear 'what' but no 'when' trigger guidance — there is no 'Use when...' clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant terms ('titles', 'abstracts', 'submission fit') but leans formal/jargony and lacks the casual natural phrasing users would say, with no synonyms or file-type cues.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The biomedical manuscript title/abstract niche is clearly distinct with minimal conflict risk, though 'biomedical research writing' could overlap slightly with general scientific writing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/title-and-abstract-optimizer/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~9 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.