citation-chasing-mapping
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived evaluation kept the skill tied to retrieved records or indexed source material rather than invented scientific claims. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The package stayed in retrieval, extraction, or evidence-organization scope rather than drifting into unsupported interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for citation-chasing-mapping in the archived evaluation. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy evaluation did not preserve a usability failure in the packaged retrieval path. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The Use when identifying seminal papers in a research field, mapping... scenario completed within the documented Use when identifying seminal papers in a research field, mapping research lineage and... boundary.
Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
The archived run for Use when identifying seminal papers in a research field, mapping... confirmed the helper entrypoint and left the workflow in a stable state.
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
This stress case was mostly intact, but the archived review centered its concern on: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Evidence Insight 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