grant-funding-scout
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The legacy audit did not indicate that retrieval outputs were presented as unsupported findings. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The package stayed in retrieval, extraction, or evidence-organization scope rather than drifting into unsupported interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for grant-funding-scout in the archived evaluation. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy evaluation did not preserve a usability failure in the packaged retrieval path. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The archived evaluation treated NIH funding trend analysis to identify high-priority research areas as a clean in-scope run.
The Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented NIH funding trend analysis to identify high-priority research areas boundary.
For NIH funding trend analysis to identify high-priority research areas, the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
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 Evidence Insight 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