fastqc-report-interpreter
Use when analyzing FASTQC quality reports from sequencing data, identifying quality issues in NGS datasets, or troubleshooting sequencing problems. Interprets quality metrics and provides actionable recommendations for RNA-seq, DNA-seq, and ChIP-seq data.
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | Scientific integrity held because extraction and analysis outputs stayed tied to provided text, metadata, or runtime evidence rather than invented study findings. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The archived review kept this package within Use when analyzing FASTQC quality reports from sequencing data, identifying quality issues..., not freeform inference detached from source data. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The archived evaluation treated the workflow as method-linked rather than ad hoc. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy audit did not record a code-usability failure in the packaged analysis path. |
Core Capability83 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 87.2 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
Use when analyzing FASTQC quality reports from sequencing data,... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
The archived evaluation treated Use this skill for data analysis tasks that require explicit... as a clean in-scope run.
For Use when analyzing FASTQC quality reports from sequencing data,..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
The archived evaluation treated Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py as a clean in-scope run.
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 Data Analysis with execution mode B
- Static quality score is 83/100 and dynamic average is 87.2/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review