Academic Writing
ehr-semantic-compressor
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 | The archived evaluation preserved source-faithful writing behavior without adding unsupported results or conclusions. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | Practice boundaries held because the package kept to 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing... instead of claiming new evidence. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The legacy audit preserved a method-grounded interpretation of the 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 workflow. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The archived review found the packaged execution path for ehr-semantic-compressor usable in its intended context. |
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
The archived deduction in reliability traces back to: 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
Maintainability stayed solid, with modest room to simplify or consolidate the conversion workflow.
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
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 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable... scenario completed within the documented 1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing... boundary.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The ehr-semantic-compressor 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 ehr-semantic-compressor 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 ehr-semantic-compressor 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 archived evaluation treated Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py as a clean in-scope run.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The ehr-semantic-compressor 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 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 ehr-semantic-compressor 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