Academic Writing
blind-review-sanitizer
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
90Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
84Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
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 | Practice boundaries held because the package kept to Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured... instead of claiming new evidence. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The older review treated the package logic as methodologically aligned with its stated workflow. |
| Code Usability | N/A | The audited output is a narrative or formatting deliverable rather than a code-first scientific 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 blind-review-sanitizer: Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
10 / 12
83%
Performance & Context
The legacy audit gave full marks to performance context for this package.
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
The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.
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 workflow is low-risk to maintain, though a little more structural cleanup would likely close the remaining gap.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
Related legacy finding for blind-review-sanitizer: 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
Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
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
Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
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: Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The blind-review-sanitizer 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 Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured... boundary.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 50/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The blind-review-sanitizer 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
Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
For Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The blind-review-sanitizer 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
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The blind-review-sanitizer 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: Use blind-review-sanitizer for academic writing workflows that need structured anonymization, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries for double-blind submission
The main issue in this stress run was: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 45/60|Total 76/100
✅A1The blind-review-sanitizer 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