Academic Writing
adverse-event-narrative
85100Total Score
Core Capability
88 / 100
Functional Suitability
11 / 12
Reliability
10 / 12
Performance & Context
8 / 8
Agent Usability
14 / 16
Human Usability
8 / 8
Security
10 / 12
Maintainability
10 / 12
Agent-Specific
17 / 20
Medical Task
18 / 20 Passed
901. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
841. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
2/4
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
Skill Veto✓ All 4 gates passed
✓
Operational Stability
System remains stable across varied inputs and edge cases
PASS✓
Structural Consistency
Output structure conforms to expected skill contract format
PASS✓
Result Determinism
Equivalent inputs produce semantically equivalent outputs
PASS✓
System Security
No prompt injection, data leakage, or unsafe tool use detected
PASSResearch Veto✅ PASS — Applicable
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | Scientific integrity remained intact because the package rewrote or structured material without fabricating findings. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The evaluated outputs stayed inside the 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing... workflow rather than drifting into unsupported scientific interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for adverse-event-narrative in the archived evaluation. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy audit did not flag code-usability issues for the packaged adverse-event-narrative workflow. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
Functional fit remained strong, though the final communication package could still be a little tighter.
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
Related legacy finding for adverse-event-narrative: Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
10 / 12
83%
Performance & Context
No point loss was recorded for performance context in the legacy audit.
8 / 8
100%
Agent Usability
The package guides agents reasonably well, while still leaving a little room for crisper trigger wording.
14 / 16
88%
Human Usability
Human usability reached full score in the archived evaluation.
8 / 8
100%
Security
Security scored well, though the archived review still left some room to state source-faithful boundaries more explicitly.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The archived review treated the package as maintainable overall, while still leaving some cleanup headroom.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
Agent specific was softened by the legacy issue 'Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior'. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
17 / 20
85%
Core Capability Total88 / 100
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
90
Canonical
1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
4/4 ✓
86
Variant A
Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4 ✓
84
Edge
1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
4/4 ✓
82
Variant B
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4 ✓
76
Stress
End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
The archived evaluation treated 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable... as a clean in-scope run.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The adverse-event-narrative output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
86
Variant A✅ Pass
Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
The Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing... boundary.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 50/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The adverse-event-narrative output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
84
Edge✅ Pass
1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
The 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable... path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The adverse-event-narrative output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
82
Variant B✅ Pass
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
For Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py, the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The adverse-event-narrative output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
76
Stress✅ Pass
End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work. 2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported as
The 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing... path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 45/60|Total 76/100
✅A1The adverse-event-narrative output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
❌A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
❌A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 2 / 4
Medical Task Total83.6 / 100
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Academic Writing with execution mode B
- Static quality score is 88/100 and dynamic average is 83.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review