Academic Writing
grant-budget-justification
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
90Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
84Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
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 archived review kept this package within Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured..., not result fabrication or expert advice. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The legacy audit preserved a method-grounded interpretation of the Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries workflow. |
| Code Usability | N/A | The core deliverable is textual rather than executable, which makes code usability not applicable in this case. |
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
Related legacy finding for grant-budget-justification: Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
10 / 12
83%
Performance & Context
Performance context reached full score in the archived evaluation.
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
The workflow stayed safe overall, with only a small remaining deduction around boundary signaling.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The workflow is low-risk to maintain, though a little more structural cleanup would likely close the remaining gap.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
Related legacy finding for grant-budget-justification: 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
Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
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
Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
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: Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
The Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that... scenario completed within the documented Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured... boundary.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The grant-budget-justification 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 Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured... boundary.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 50/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The grant-budget-justification 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
Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
For Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The grant-budget-justification 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 grant-budget-justification 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: Use grant budget justification for academic writing workflows that need structured execution, explicit assumptions, and clear output boundaries
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 grant-budget-justification 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