medical-email-polisher
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived evaluation preserved source-faithful writing behavior without adding unsupported results or conclusions. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The evaluated outputs stayed inside the Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical correspondence workflow rather than drifting into unsupported scientific interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The older review treated the package logic as methodologically aligned with its stated workflow. |
| Code Usability | PASS | No code-usability failure was preserved for medical-email-polisher in the legacy evaluation. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical... scenario completed within the documented Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical correspondence boundary.
The Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... scenario completed within the documented Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical correspondence boundary.
Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Transforms rough email drafts into polished, professional medical correspondence boundary.
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 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