tooluniverse-clinical-trial-design

Strategic clinical trial design feasibility assessment. Analyzes 6 dimensions (endpoint, population, comparator, effect size, duration, regulatory pathway) using precedent trials and FDA guidance. Produces enrollment projections, endpoint recommendations, and approval-pathway analysis. Use for trial-protocol design, power/sample-size estimation, comparator selection, and FDA submission strategy. Driven by precedent-based reasoning rather than first-principles math.

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugin/skills/tooluniverse-clinical-trial-design/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%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 actionable with concrete code and tool mappings, but is held back by missing validation checkpoints in the workflow and—most importantly—by six referenced bundle files that do not exist.

Suggestions

Add the missing reference files (STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md, REPORT_TEMPLATE.md, WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md, BEST_PRACTICES.md, EXAMPLES.md, QUICK_START.md) or remove the references and inline the essential content.

Add explicit validation checkpoints and a feedback loop (e.g., verify endpoint FDA acceptance, then proceed; re-check enrollment projections against precedents) to the 6-path workflow.

Trim the feasibility-score weighting, evidence-grading table, and the long Programmatic Access code block, or move them to a reference file to improve token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and domain-specific, but sections like the feasibility-score weighting breakdown, evidence-grading table, and the long 'Programmatic Access' code block could be tightened or moved to reference files; some padding remains.	3 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete executable code (Quick Start and ClinicalTrials.gov API examples) and specific tool names per research path, with only minor gaps where detail is deferred to non-existent reference files.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear sequence exists (4 reasoning questions, 6 parallel paths, report-first steps), but explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops for the multi-path research and report assembly are absent or only implicit.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	References are well-signaled and one-level-deep in a Reference Files table, but all six referenced files (STUDY_DESIGN_PROCEDURES.md, REPORT_TEMPLATE.md, WORKFLOW_DETAILS.md, BEST_PRACTICES.md, EXAMPLES.md, QUICK_START.md) are absent from the bundle, so the disclosure targets are broken.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

92%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.

A strong description: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, explicit 'what' and 'when' clauses, and a distinct niche. The only minor gap is trigger-term synonym breadth.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions across 'Analyzes 6 dimensions (endpoint, population, comparator, effect size, duration, regulatory pathway)', 'Produces enrollment projections, endpoint recommendations, and approval-pathway analysis', and 'power/sample-size estimation, comparator selection, and FDA submission strategy' — comprehensive coverage of specific capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Analyzes 6 dimensions... Produces enrollment projections, endpoint recommendations, and approval-pathway analysis') and when ('Use for trial-protocol design, power/sample-size estimation, comparator selection, and FDA submission strategy') with concrete trigger guidance.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural domain phrases users would say ('clinical trial design', 'trial-protocol design', 'comparator selection', 'FDA submission strategy', 'power/sample-size estimation') with good coverage, though it lacks the breadth of synonyms/variations that would warrant a 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (clinical trial design feasibility, precedent-based reasoning) with distinct, domain-specific triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: mims-harvard/ToolUniverse
Path: plugin/skills/tooluniverse-clinical-trial-design/SKILL.md
Commit: 1b02920

Reviewed: 1 day 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.