Academic Writing
grant-mock-reviewer
Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers.
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
90Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
84Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
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 Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers instead of claiming new evidence. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The older review treated the package logic as methodologically aligned with its stated workflow. |
| Code Usability | N/A | The audited output is a narrative or formatting deliverable rather than a code-first scientific workflow. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
The writing workflow lands well overall, with minor remaining headroom in the final deliverable contract.
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
Reliability was softened by the legacy issue '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
Agent usability was strong, though the workflow could surface its main conversion branches more directly.
14 / 16
88%
Human Usability
The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.
8 / 8
100%
Security
The workflow stayed safe overall, with only a small remaining deduction around boundary signaling.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The archived review treated the package as maintainable overall, while still leaving some cleanup headroom.
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
Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
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
Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
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: Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
The archived evaluation treated Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers as a clean in-scope run.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The grant-mock-reviewer 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 grant-mock-reviewer 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
Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
The archived run for Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers confirmed the helper entrypoint and left the workflow in a stable state.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The grant-mock-reviewer 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 Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers boundary.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The grant-mock-reviewer 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: Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers
The Simulates NIH study section peer review for grant proposals. Triggers path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 45/60|Total 76/100
✅A1The grant-mock-reviewer 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