CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

treatment-plans

Generate concise (3-4 page), focused medical treatment plans in LaTeX/PDF format for all clinical specialties. Supports general medical treatment, rehabilitation therapy, mental health care, chronic disease management, perioperative care, and pain management. Includes SMART goal frameworks, evidence-based interventions with minimal text citations, regulatory compliance (HIPAA), and professional formatting. Prioritizes brevity and clinical actionability.

47

Quality

51%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Medium

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./bundled/skills/treatment-plans/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

35%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable in places (real commands, LaTeX environments, a validation workflow) but severely suffers from verbosity, repeated directives, and a monolithic structure that ignores its own reference bundle. Splitting the inlined specialty and styling content into the existing reference files and linking them would substantially improve conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the six specialty 'Core Capabilities' sections and the lengthy 'Professional Document Styling' block into the existing reference files (e.g., specialty_specific_guidelines.md, intervention_guidelines.md, STYLING_QUICK_REFERENCE.md) and replace them with one-line links, collapsing the body to a concise overview.

Deduplicate the repeated brevity/length guidance into a single canonical section and remove restatements across Overview, Document Format, Concise Documentation, and Best Practices to recover token budget.

Resolve the conflicting length directives (1-page 'PREFERRED' vs 3-4 page 'standard' vs 'MUST be 3-4 pages') into one decision rule so the generation workflow has a single unambiguous path.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~1570-line body is markedly verbose: it restates the 'be concise / 3-4 pages' directive repeatedly across Overview, Document Format, Concise Documentation, and Best Practices sections, and explains clinical concepts Claude already knows (e.g., what SMART goals are, standard specialty content), matching the score-1 anchor of verbosity padded with unnecessary context rather than the mostly-efficient score-2 level.

1 / 3

Actionability

It provides some executable guidance — concrete commands like `pdflatex`, `python validate_treatment_plan.py`, `python generate_template.py`, and real LaTeX box environments — but many 'examples' are non-executable placeholders (e.g., '[Patient ID/Diagnosis Box at top]', '• Medication 1: dose, frequency, duration'), matching the score-2 anchor of concrete guidance that is incomplete or partly pseudocode rather than fully copy-paste-ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequenced Validation Workflow exists (create → check completeness → validate → review checklist → generate PDF) with checkpoints, but the dominant document-generation workflow is obscured by conflicting 'MUST/PREFERRED' directives (1-page preferred vs 3-4 page standard vs 5-6 extended) and multiple repeated first-page-summary rules, matching the score-2 anchor of steps present with implicit/overlapping checkpoints rather than a single clear validated sequence.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ with 6 reference .md files, STYLING_QUICK_REFERENCE.md, templates, .sty), but the body is a monolithic wall that never links the six reference files or STYLING_QUICK_REFERENCE.md and inlines the specialty 'Core Capabilities' content that those references are meant to hold, matching the score-2 anchor of structure present but content that should be separate is inline and references are not clearly signaled.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 and distinctive, naming concrete capabilities and a clear medical-treatment-plan niche, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness and leaves trigger guidance implicit. Adding natural user-facing trigger phrasing would lift the completeness and trigger_term_quality dimensions.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when...' clause (e.g., 'Use when generating medical treatment plans, care plans, or specialty-specific therapy plans in LaTeX/PDF') to satisfy the completeness score-3 anchor.

Add common user-level trigger terms like 'care plan' and 'patient treatment plan' alongside the formal specialty names to improve trigger_term_quality.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions and capabilities — "Generate concise (3-4 page), focused medical treatment plans in LaTeX/PDF format", enumerates six specialty types, and "Includes SMART goal frameworks, evidence-based interventions... regulatory compliance (HIPAA)" — matching the score-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" (generate LaTeX/PDF treatment plans with SMART goals, citations, HIPAA compliance) but has no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause; per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 2, so it is not the score-3 level despite the strong what-description.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant natural terms ("treatment plans", "rehabilitation", "mental health", "chronic disease management", "pain management", "HIPAA") but is weighted toward formal specialty taxonomy rather than the casual variations a user would actually say (e.g., "care plan", "patient plan"), so it matches the score-2 anchor of some relevant keywords missing common variations rather than full score-3 coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — concise medical treatment plans in LaTeX/PDF with named specialties and HIPAA compliance — with triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the score-3 anchor of a clear niche with distinct triggers; it is distinguishable from generic document or clinical-report skills.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (1580 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

13

/

16

Passed

Repository
foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-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.