CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tooluniverse-gwas-study-explorer

Compare GWAS studies, perform meta-analyses, and assess replication across cohorts. Integrates NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog and Open Targets Genetics to compare study designs, effect sizes, ancestry diversity, and heterogeneity statistics. Use when comparing GWAS studies for a trait, performing meta-analysis of genetic loci, assessing replication across cohorts, or exploring the genetic architecture of complex diseases.

64

Quality

75%

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 ./skills/bio/tooluniverse-gwas-study-explorer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%

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

The content is well-organized and domain-specific but verbose: it re-teaches concepts Claude already knows, offers abstract workflows without executable tool examples or validation checkpoints, and bundles everything into one file rather than progressively disclosing detail. It scores a uniform 2 across all dimensions.

Suggestions

Cut the Glossary and the fixed/random-effects and I²-formula explanations — Claude already knows these; keep only the tool list, thresholds, and tier definitions that are non-obvious.

Add executable tool-invocation examples for each use-case workflow (e.g., actual gwas_search_studies call arguments and how to combine results) so guidance is copy-paste ready rather than bulleted prose.

Add validation/checkpoint steps to the workflows (e.g., confirm overlap of SNPs across studies before meta-analysis, abort if I² > 75%) and move the scientific references and statistical-method detail into reference files linked from the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is efficient in places (concrete tool names, thresholds) but padded with concepts Claude already knows — a glossary ('Association: Statistical relationship...', 'Meta-Analysis: Statistical combination...'), the I² formula prose, and fixed/random-effects model explanations — so it lands at 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' rather than lean.

2 / 3

Actionability

It names specific tools (gwas_search_studies, OpenTargets_get_study) and concrete thresholds (I² < 25%, p < 5×10⁻⁸, Tier n ≥ 50,000), but workflows are abstract bulleted steps ('Calculate combined effect size', 'Filter studies by ancestry') with no executable tool-invocation examples or copy-paste commands.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Use-case workflows are sequenced lists, but there are no validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops for batch aggregation operations, which caps workflow clarity at 2 per the rubric.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~330-line monolith with no bundle files; content that could be separate references (glossary, scientific references, detailed statistical methods) sits inline, so it has structure but no one-level-deep reference split.

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.

A strong, well-formed description: third-person voice, concrete capabilities, named data sources, and an explicit 'Use when' trigger. No significant weaknesses to address.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('Compare GWAS studies, perform meta-analyses, and assess replication across cohorts') and enumerates specific comparison axes ('study designs, effect sizes, ancestry diversity, and heterogeneity statistics'), matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what it does and when to use it via the 'Use when comparing GWAS studies for a trait, performing meta-analysis...' trigger clause, matching the top anchor.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural terms a user would say — 'GWAS studies', 'meta-analysis', 'replication across cohorts', 'genetic architecture of complex diseases' — with good breadth, matching the high-coverage anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (GWAS study comparison and meta-analysis) with distinct, domain-specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

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
wu-yc/LabClaw
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.