CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tooluniverse-gwas-study-explorer

Compare GWAS studies, perform meta-analyses across cohorts, and assess signal replication. Uses GWAS Catalog metadata, study-level statistics, and cross-cohort comparison. Use for evaluating GWAS reproducibility for a trait, meta-analysis sample size and effect-size aggregation, and detecting study heterogeneity (population, design, ancestry).

66

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugin/skills/tooluniverse-gwas-study-explorer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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 domain-aware with named tools and a meaningful honesty guardrail, but it is verbose with re-taught concepts, light on executable code, and lacks validation feedback loops and external reference files. It sits solidly at the mid-level anchors across dimensions.

Suggestions

Trim sections that re-explain well-known concepts (I² definition, fixed/random-effects, winner's curse, interpretation thresholds) to lean operational guidance that assumes Claude's statistics knowledge.

Add a copy-paste-ready Python snippet for inverse-variance meta-analysis (beta + 95% CI pooling, Cochran's Q / I²) so the core computation is executable rather than described.

Introduce explicit validation checkpoints in the meta-analysis and replication workflows (e.g. 'verify effect sizes present before pooling; if absent, fall back to descriptive mode and stop') and move deep reference material into referenced files.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Much of the body is efficient operational guidance, but lengthy sections restate domain knowledge Claude already knows — e.g. defining I², fixed- vs random-effects models, winner's curse, and interpretation thresholds — that could be trimmed.

2 / 3

Actionability

It names concrete tools and gives one executable formula block, but the meta-analysis workflow lacks copy-paste code (no Python snippet for inverse-variance pooling) and relies on prose/pseudocode-level steps for the actual computation.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Use cases are sequenced as ordered steps, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the risky meta-analysis operations; the 'Honesty rule' is an honesty caveat rather than a validate-then-proceed loop.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized with a clear TOC-like structure, but it is a single monolithic SKILL.md with no references/ bundle files and no signaled pointers to deeper material, so reference depth is not exercised.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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 third-person, concise, and clearly states both capabilities and explicit 'Use for' trigger scenarios with a distinctive GWAS meta-analysis niche. It is well-aligned with the high-quality examples and earns top marks across all dimensions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Compare GWAS studies, perform meta-analyses across cohorts, and assess signal replication' — with named data sources (GWAS Catalog metadata, study-level statistics).

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (compare, meta-analyze, assess replication) and when via the 'Use for evaluating... meta-analysis... and detecting...' clause that names three distinct trigger scenarios.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural user phrasings such as 'evaluating GWAS reproducibility for a trait', 'meta-analysis sample size and effect-size aggregation', and 'detecting study heterogeneity', mapping well to how a researcher would ask.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — cross-cohort GWAS comparison and meta-analysis — with triggers unlikely to overlap with unrelated skills; the combination of reproducibility, effect-size aggregation, and heterogeneity is distinctive.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.