pdf-extract-experimental-materials
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | No scientific-integrity problem was surfaced in the legacy audit for the Extract experimental materials and instrument information from PDFs (or PDF-derived text/Markdown) into three CSV tables workflow. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | Practice boundaries held because the package remained focused on source handling, lookup, or structured evidence use. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The archived evaluation treated the workflow as method-linked rather than ad hoc. |
| Code Usability | PASS | Code usability passed because the package still exposed a reviewable execution surface for its documented workflow. |
Core Capability83 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 96 / 100 — Assertions: 20/20 Passed
For You need to build a structured inventory of..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
The archived run for A document includes a Key Resources Table and you want to convert... confirmed the helper entrypoint and left the workflow in a stable state.
The Accepts PDF-derived Markdown/text as primary input; falls back to... path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
For Table-first parsing: prioritizes structured tables (e.g., Key..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
For End-to-end case for Accepts PDF-derived Markdown/text as primary..., the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Evidence Insight with execution mode B
- Static quality score is 83/100 and dynamic average is 83.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
- Execution verification summary: Script verification 1/1; adjustment=5. validate_skill.py: OK