translational-study-blueprint

Designs a translational blueprint for moving a biomedical finding toward diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response prediction, patient stratification, or therapeutic development, with explicit translational milestones, validation thresholds, and feasibility-sensitive route framing.

Quality

70%

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/Protocol Design/translational-study-blueprint/SKILL.md

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.

A well-structured, actionable instruction-only skill with excellent progressive disclosure via real reference files and a clear sequenced workflow. Its main weakness is repetition across the cautionary sections, which inflates length without adding information.

Suggestions

Merge the overlapping cautionary material in 'should not be used to', 'What This Skill Should Not Do', and 'Hard Rules' into a single consolidated rules section to remove repetition.

Add one short worked example (a compressed sample blueprint for a representative input) to push actionability from 4 to 5.

Consider an explicit output self-check step (e.g. 'Before finalizing, verify every section A-J is present and at least one non-advancement signal is stated') to add a validation checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly disciplined procedural guidance rather than basic-concept padding, but it repeats the same cautionary material across three sections — 'should not be used to' (lines 23-29), 'Hard Rules' (255-271), and 'What This Skill Should Not Do' (273-281) — which could be consolidated.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides a concrete 8-step procedure with per-step sub-items, a mandatory 10-section output structure (A-J), formatting expectations, and 15 hard rules — highly actionable for an instruction-only skill, though it lacks a worked example of a completed blueprint output.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 1-8 are explicitly ordered and the Mandatory Output Structure plus Hard Rule 15 (self-critical risk review) act as completeness checkpoints; it falls short of 5 only because there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop, which is acceptable for a generative skill.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview/procedure that points to six real, one-level-deep reference files in ./references/, each clearly signaled with a purpose statement ('Use references/01_use_case_framing.md to ...'); navigation is easy and content is appropriately split.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 specific, third-person, and clearly niche-distinguised, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps its completeness. Adding a concrete usage-trigger sentence would raise the completeness and trigger-term scores.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggering situations (e.g. 'Use when moving a biomarker or target from discovery toward a staged validation roadmap').

Add a few natural-sounding synonyms users might actually say (e.g. 'biomarker validation roadmap', 'diagnostic development plan') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

Reframe the composite 'Designs a translational blueprint ... with milestones, thresholds, route framing' as a short list of distinct concrete actions to push specificity toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and enumerates several concrete deliverables — 'translational milestones, validation thresholds, and feasibility-sensitive route framing' across five named use-case families — but frames them as attributes of one composite action rather than multiple discrete operations, so it stops short of comprehensive multi-action coverage.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3; 'when' is only weakly implied by the enumerated use cases.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural domain terms a biomedical researcher would say — 'diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response prediction, patient stratification, or therapeutic development' — with good keyword breadth, though a few common variants (e.g. 'detection', 'biomarker validation') are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear, narrow niche (translational study blueprinting for biomedical research) with highly specific trigger language, making conflict with unrelated skills minimal.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/Protocol Design/translational-study-blueprint/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~18 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.