Academic Writing
discussion-section-architect
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
90Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
84Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports. Use when writing a discussion section, interpreting research results, connecting findings to existing literature, addressing study limitations, synthesizing conclusions, or drafting any part of an academic discussion. Helps researchers organize arguments, contextualize data, and produce clear, publication-ready discussion prose
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 Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports workflow rather than drifting into unsupported scientific interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The legacy audit preserved a method-grounded interpretation of the Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports workflow. |
| Code Usability | N/A | This package is judged mainly on writing behavior, so code usability is not a central evaluation target here. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
The writing workflow lands well overall, with minor remaining headroom in the final deliverable contract.
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
Related legacy finding for discussion-section-architect: 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
The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.
8 / 8
100%
Security
A modest security gap remained because the package could make its safe-use limits even clearer.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The archived review treated the package as maintainable overall, while still leaving some cleanup headroom.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
The archived deduction in agent specific traces back to: 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
Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
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
Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
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: Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports. Use when writing a discussion section, interpreting research results, connecting findings to existing literature, addressing study limitations, synthesizing conclusions, or drafting any part of an academic discussion. Helps researchers organize arguments, contextualize data, and produce clear, publication-ready discussion prose
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
The Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and... scenario completed within the documented Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports boundary.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The discussion-section-architect 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 archived evaluation treated Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... as a clean in-scope run.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 50/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The discussion-section-architect 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
Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports
For Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The discussion-section-architect 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
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports boundary.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The discussion-section-architect 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: Structures and writes discussion sections for academic papers and research reports. Use when writing a discussion section, interpreting research results, connecting findings to existing literature, addressing study limitations, synthesizing conclusions, or drafting any part of an academic discussion. Helps researchers organize arguments, contextualize data, and produce clear, publication-ready discussion prose
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 discussion-section-architect 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