Protocol Design
endpoint-definition-designer
Designs primary, secondary, and exploratory endpoints for biomedical and clinical research protocols. Always use this skill when a user needs to translate study aims into operational endpoint definitions with event rules, assessment timing, composite logic, interpretability, and
90100Total Score
Core Capability
93 / 100
Functional Suitability
12 / 12
Reliability
11 / 12
Performance & Context
7 / 8
Agent Usability
16 / 16
Human Usability
7 / 8
Security
12 / 12
Maintainability
11 / 12
Agent-Specific
17 / 20
Medical Task
24 / 25 Passed
90Primary and secondary endpoints for retrospective septic shock cohort
5/5
88Prognostic biomarker endpoints in pancreatic cancer cohort
5/5
88Composite endpoint design for immunotherapy response and survival
5/5
87Vague request: 'design endpoints for our study' without disease or study type
4/5
86Complex multi-endpoint protocol with time-to-event, binary, and continuous outcomes
5/5
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 | No fabricated references, DOIs, PMIDs, statistical values, or clinical data detected. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | No diagnostic conclusions or unapproved treatment recommendations produced. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | Composite endpoint justification rule and surrogate-labeling hard rule are methodologically rigorous |
| Code Usability | N/A | No code generated; Category 2 endpoint design planning only |
Core Capability93 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
Full marks (12/12); no significant issues detected.
12 / 12
100%
Reliability
Mandatory clarification gate is excellent; one gap: provisional scaffold not always labeled as such when produced
11 / 12
92%
Performance & Context
280 lines with ten reference modules — well-balanced progressive disclosure
7 / 8
88%
Agent Usability
Full marks (16/16); no significant issues detected.
16 / 16
100%
Human Usability
Strong score (7/8); minor gaps noted.
7 / 8
88%
Security
Full marks (12/12); no significant issues detected.
12 / 12
100%
Maintainability
Strong score (11/12); minor gaps noted.
11 / 12
92%
Agent-Specific
Three-tier final status label (provisional/workable/operational) is an excellent usability signal; description strong
17 / 20
85%
Core Capability Total93 / 100
Medical TaskExecution Average: 87.8 / 100 — Assertions: 24/25 Passed
90
Canonical
Primary and secondary endpoints for retrospective septic shock cohort
5/5 ✓
88
Variant A
Prognostic biomarker endpoints in pancreatic cancer cohort
5/5 ✓
88
Variant B
Composite endpoint design for immunotherapy response and survival
5/5 ✓
87
Edge
Vague request: 'design endpoints for our study' without disease or study type
4/5 ✓
86
Stress
Complex multi-endpoint protocol with time-to-event, binary, and continuous outcomes
5/5 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Primary and secondary endpoints for retrospective septic shock cohort
5/5 assertions passed.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 90/100
✅A1Primary endpoint defined in clear operational terms with event triggers
✅A2Event definition and assessment timing specified in Section E
✅A3Operationalization table present mapping endpoints to capture sources
✅A4Surrogate endpoints labeled as not self-validating
✅A5Final draft status label (provisional/workable/operational) present
Pass rate: 5 / 5
88
Variant A✅ Pass
Prognostic biomarker endpoints in pancreatic cancer cohort
5/5 assertions passed.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 53/60|Total 88/100
✅A1Biomarker endpoint separated from clinical outcome endpoint
✅A2Baseline variable not mixed with endpoint definition
✅A3Endpoint hierarchy with primary/secondary/exploratory separation present
✅A4Section H bias and interpretability review present
✅A5No fabricated event rates or validation performance
Pass rate: 5 / 5
88
Variant B✅ Pass
Composite endpoint design for immunotherapy response and survival
5/5 assertions passed.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 53/60|Total 88/100
✅A1Composite endpoint justification explicitly stated with component rationale
✅A2First-event rule and heterogeneous severity handling addressed
✅A3Alternative to composite (separate endpoints) compared
✅A4Composite does not combine events merely to increase event count
✅A5Operational capture source specified per component
Pass rate: 5 / 5
87
Edge✅ Pass
Vague request: 'design endpoints for our study' without disease or study type
4/5 assertions passed.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 87/100
✅A1Clarification-first rule applied; disease context and objective requested before long output
✅A2At most minimal provisional scaffold produced before clarification
✅A3Focused follow-up questions are high-yield and concise (≤5)
❌A4Provisional scaffold labeled as provisional if produced
✅A5No endpoints invented from unspecified context
Pass rate: 4 / 5
86
Stress✅ Pass
Complex multi-endpoint protocol with time-to-event, binary, and continuous outcomes
5/5 assertions passed.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 51/60|Total 86/100
✅A1Fixed-horizon vs time-to-event structure not mixed without explicit labeling
✅A2Competing risk structure addressed when relevant
✅A3Endpoint hierarchy prevents exploratory overload
✅A4Weakest endpoint choice identified in self-critical review
✅A5No more than one true primary endpoint nominated
Pass rate: 5 / 5
Medical Task Total87.8 / 100
Key Strengths
- Mandatory clarification gate before long-form output is one of the strongest UX safeguards in this skill collection
- Three-tier final status label (provisional/workable/operational) gives users clear deployment readiness signal
- Operationalization table (Section G) is a unique and highly practical deliverable absent in most endpoint design tools
- Twelve hard rules covering surrogate labeling, composite endpoint justification, and ascertainment bias are methodologically comprehensive