medical-device-mdr-auditor
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The legacy review did not flag invented scientific claims in the package's writing-oriented output. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The evaluated outputs stayed inside the Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations workflow rather than drifting into unsupported scientific interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for medical-device-mdr-auditor in the archived evaluation. |
| Code Usability | PASS | No code-usability failure was preserved for medical-device-mdr-auditor in the legacy evaluation. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The archived evaluation treated Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations as a clean in-scope run.
The Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations boundary.
The archived run for Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations confirmed the helper entrypoint and left the workflow in a stable state.
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
The preserved weakness for End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Audit medical device technical files against EU MDR 2017/745 regulations was concentrated in one point: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
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