ib-summarizer
Summarize core safety information from Investigator's Brochures for clinical.
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived audit treated this workflow as hypothesis or protocol support, not as a source of validated results. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The legacy review kept this workflow on the evidence-access side of the boundary, not the advice-giving side. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The legacy audit preserved a method-grounded interpretation of the Summarize core safety information from Investigator's Brochures for clinical workflow. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The legacy audit did not flag code-usability issues for the packaged ib-summarizer workflow. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
Summarize core safety information from Investigator's Brochures for... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
For Summarize core safety information from Investigator's Brochures for..., 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 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