CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tooluniverse-clinical-risk-scoring

Compute and interpret validated bedside clinical risk scores and pretest probabilities for an INDIVIDUAL patient — pick the right score for the scenario, gather inputs, run the deterministic calculator tool, and read the result against an interpretation table. Covers CHA2DS2-VASc (AF stroke risk), HAS-BLED (bleeding on anticoagulation), CURB-65 (pneumonia severity / admit decision), qSOFA (sepsis screen), Child-Pugh + MELD-Na (cirrhosis severity / transplant priority), Wells DVT and Wells PE (VTE pretest probability), ASCVD (10-year cardiovascular risk / statin decision), and eGFR CKD-EPI (kidney function / drug dosing). Use when asked things like "stroke risk for this AF patient", "should this patient be anticoagulated", "pneumonia severity — admit or not?", "sepsis screen this patient", "DVT/PE pretest probability", "10-year cardiovascular risk", "cirrhosis severity / MELD score", or "eGFR / kidney function". Pairs CHA2DS2-VASc with HAS-BLED to weigh anticoagulation. NOT for...

78

Quality

98%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is tooluniverse-clinical-risk-scoring in mims-harvard/ToolUniverse

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

96%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 high-quality, highly actionable calculator skill: lean tables, executable commands, two full worked examples, explicit input-validation guards, a checklist, and honest LIMITATIONS. The only weakness is progressive disclosure — everything lives in one ~180-line file rather than splitting the per-score interpretation tables into a separate reference file.

Suggestions

Consider moving the per-score interpretation tables into a separate reference file (e.g. references/interpretation.md) and keeping SKILL.md as an overview with a clear one-level-deep pointer, to improve progressive disclosure and reduce base-context load.

Add an explicit re-run/retry note for when a tool call fails or returns an unexpected unit (e.g., on a unit mismatch, correct the input and re-run) to formalize the feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and information-dense: compact scenario/inputs/interpretation tables and executable commands with no padding explaining basic clinical or programming concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place.

5 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable `tu run <tool> '{...}'` commands with concrete JSON payloads, exact tool names, exact required/optional fields, and two complete worked examples showing inputs and expected outputs — copy-paste ready covering common cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear 4-step sequence (Map → Gather → Compute → Interpret) with explicit validation checkpoints (ask rather than guess missing required values, state assumed-false booleans), a completeness checklist, and a LIMITATIONS feedback section; no destructive/batch cap applies to read-only computation.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clear sections (steps, per-score subsections, worked examples, checklist, limitations) and appropriately self-contained, but it is a single monolithic file with no one-level-deep references to separate files for the dense per-score interpretation tables, leaving minor organization gaps versus the ideal split.

4 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Description

100%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.

An exemplary description: concrete capabilities, comprehensive score coverage, abundant natural trigger phrases, and explicit what/when guidance with a boundary clause. The only blemish is that the trailing "NOT for..." clause appears truncated in the frontmatter, which slightly weakens the distinctiveness boundary rather than the capability description itself.

Suggestions

Complete the truncated "NOT for..." clause at the end of the description so the exclusion boundary is fully stated rather than cut off.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ("pick the right score", "gather inputs", "run the deterministic calculator tool", "read the result against an interpretation table") and comprehensively enumerates all 10 covered scores with their clinical purpose.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both "what" (compute/interpret validated bedside clinical risk scores, with the full list of 10) and "when" ("Use when asked things like ...") with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Provides many natural user-facing trigger phrases in quotes ("stroke risk for this AF patient", "should this patient be anticoagulated", "pneumonia severity — admit or not?", "sepsis screen this patient", "DVT/PE pretest probability", "10-year cardiovascular risk", "cirrhosis severity / MELD score", "eGFR / kidney function") with synonym coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (validated bedside clinical risk scoring for an INDIVIDUAL patient) with specific named scores, pairing guidance (CHA2DS2-VASc+HAS-BLED), and a boundary "NOT for..." clause, keeping conflict risk minimal.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
mims-harvard/ToolUniverse
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.