keyword-velocity-tracker
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 keyword-velocity-tracker 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
Calculate literature growth velocity and acceleration to assess research remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
The archived evaluation treated Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit... as a clean in-scope run.
The Calculate literature growth velocity and acceleration to assess research path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Calculate literature growth velocity and acceleration to assess research boundary.
The preserved weakness for End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Calculate literature growth velocity and acceleration to assess research was concentrated in one point: 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