Content
75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews 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-organized, mostly executable skill: concrete Quick start code, a clear sequenced workflow with a radiologist-verification checkpoint, and high-value edge-case guidance. The main gaps are the two undefined helper functions that keep the example from being copy-paste ready and the absence of an explicit validation/feedback loop in the workflow.
Suggestions
Define _split_findings and _extract_followup inline (or supply them as a scripts/ helper) so the Quick start example is fully copy-paste runnable — currently the reader must implement two unspecified functions.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. 'before emitting output, verify every finding has non-null source_offsets and laterality binds to an adjacent anatomy span; if not, re-inspect the source sentence' — a validate-and-retry loop rather than a single end-of-flow human review.
Trim the opening two paragraphs to just the target schema ({technique, comparison, findings[], impression} with anatomy/laterality/measurement), since Claude already knows the general structure of radiology reports.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and high-value (quick-start code, tight 7-step workflow, targeted edge cases, a references section) with no tutorial-style padding, but the opening two paragraphs partially explain what Claude already knows (that radiology reports contain findings, impressions, and categories), and a few workflow sentences could be trimmed. It is not a 5 because that framing does not earn its place, and not a 3 because over-explanation is isolated rather than pervasive. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Quick start uses real API calls ('openmed.deidentify(report, policy="hipaa_safe_harbor")', 'openmed.analyze_text(text, model_name="anatomy_detection_superclinical", ...)') with concrete regexes for sections, measurements, laterality, and RADS categories — mostly executable. It is not a 5 because '_split_findings' and '_extract_followup' are referenced but never defined, so the example is not copy-paste runnable; it is not a 3 because the gaps are two clearly-delegated helpers while the rest is concrete, working code. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced (de-identify → split sections → NER → build findings → pull assessment → flag incidentals → map/verify) and ends with an explicit checkpoint ('surface the whole structure to a radiologist for verification'), with the edge-cases section covering failure modes like negation and laterality binding. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop (e.g., verify every finding traces to source offsets before emitting output); it is not a 3 because a verification step and risk handling are present, not absent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist, and the ~150-line body is well-sectioned (When to use, Quick start, Workflow, Hand-off, Edge cases, Standards) with external standards appropriately deferred to a link list. It is not a 5 because the skill exceeds the 'under 50 lines' self-contained exception — the edge-case catalogue and standards list are candidates for one-level-deep reference files; it is not a 3 because structure is good and nothing is buried or inlined that badly needs extraction. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |