CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

running-causalpy-experiments

Fit, summarize, plot, and interpret a chosen CausalPy experiment. Use after the causal method has been selected, including when configuring PyMC/sklearn models and scale-aware custom priors.

65

Quality

78%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./causalpy/skills/running-causalpy-experiments/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A concise, well-organized execution guide with strong progressive disclosure and concrete API references. Its weaknesses are the absence of executable code examples and missing explicit validation feedback loops in the workflow.

Suggestions

Add one or two complete, copy-paste-ready code blocks (e.g. instantiating a PyMC LinearRegression experiment with scale-aware priors and calling summary()/effect_summary()) to lift actionability.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow — e.g. after instantiation, verify convergence/fit diagnostics and only proceed to plotting/reporting when checks pass, with a fix-and-retry loop.

Replace the implicit 'Load and validate a DataFrame' step with concrete validation actions (check required columns, treatment/control alignment, time-index continuity) so the sequence is unambiguous.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean and efficient with no concept-explaining padding — it lists API methods and guardrails directly, assuming Claude's competence and earning every token without verbosity.

3 / 3

Actionability

Names concrete, specific APIs ("summary()", "effect_summary()", "cp.Pipeline(...).run()", "WeightedSumFitter") but provides no complete executable code blocks or copy-paste examples, so it is concrete yet incomplete rather than fully executable.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence exists, but validation is implicit ("Load and validate a DataFrame") with no explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint, capping it at 2 per the feedback-loop guidance for fragile operations.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference list of 12 experiment guides plus the priors reference, keeping the overview concise while pointing out for detail.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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, specific description with explicit what-and-when guidance and a clear niche. The main gap is trigger-term quality: it leans on technical jargon and a sequencing clause rather than a spread of natural user keywords.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names four concrete actions — "Fit, summarize, plot, and interpret" — applied to a chosen experiment, matching the multi-action anchor rather than the partial domain-only level 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ("Fit, summarize, plot, and interpret a chosen CausalPy experiment") and when ("Use after the causal method has been selected"), satisfying the explicit-trigger requirement for the top level.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses accurate domain terms ("CausalPy experiment", "PyMC/sklearn models", "scale-aware custom priors") but they are technical jargon with a sequencing trigger ("Use after the causal method has been selected") rather than broad natural-term coverage; missing common variations keeps it below level 3.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Niched to CausalPy execution and explicitly scoped "after the causal method has been selected", distinguishing it from a sibling method-choosing skill; unlikely to trigger for unrelated tasks.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 13 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
pymc-labs/CausalPy
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.