Academic Writing

peer-review

86100Total Score

Core Capability

84 / 100

Functional Suitability

11 / 12

Reliability

9 / 12

Performance & Context

7 / 8

Agent Usability

14 / 16

Human Usability

8 / 8

Security

10 / 12

Maintainability

9 / 12

Agent-Specific

16 / 20

Medical Task

20 / 20 Passed

92Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a journal/conference to identify major risks and revision priorities

4/4

88Internal lab/group review: For advisor or team quality control prior to external dissemination

4/4

86Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

4/4

86Major vs. minor issue triage: Separates publication-blocking problems from polish-level improvements

4/4

86End-to-end case for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

4/4

Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration

Skill Veto✓ All 4 gates passed

✓

Operational Stability

System remains stable across varied inputs and edge cases

PASS

✓

Structural Consistency

Output structure conforms to expected skill contract format

PASS

✓

Result Determinism

Equivalent inputs produce semantically equivalent outputs

PASS

✓

System Security

No prompt injection, data leakage, or unsafe tool use detected

PASS

Research Veto✅ PASS — Applicable

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	Practice boundaries held because the package kept to Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations... instead of claiming new evidence.
Methodological Ground	PASS	No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for peer-review in the archived evaluation.
Code Usability	N/A	This package is judged mainly on writing behavior, so code usability is not a central evaluation target here.

Core Capability84 / 100 — 8 Categories

Functional Suitability

Related legacy finding for peer-review: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency

11 / 12

92%

Reliability

Reliability was softened by the legacy issue 'Improve stress-case output rigor'. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency

9 / 12

75%

Performance & Context

The archived review left minor headroom in how efficiently this dissemination workflow scales across heavier tasks.

7 / 8

88%

Agent Usability

Agent usability was strong, though the workflow could surface its main conversion branches more directly.

14 / 16

88%

Human Usability

The legacy audit gave full marks to human usability for this package.

8 / 8

100%

Security

A modest security gap remained because the package could make its safe-use limits even clearer.

10 / 12

83%

Maintainability

The workflow is low-risk to maintain, though a little more structural cleanup would likely close the remaining gap.

9 / 12

75%

Agent-Specific

The archived deduction in agent specific traces back to: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency

16 / 20

80%

Core Capability Total84 / 100

Medical TaskExecution Average: 87.6 / 100 — Assertions: 20/20 Passed

Canonical

Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a journal/conference to identify major risks and revision priorities

4/4 ✓

Variant A

Internal lab/group review: For advisor or team quality control prior to external dissemination

4/4 ✓

Edge

Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

4/4 ✓

Variant B

Major vs. minor issue triage: Separates publication-blocking problems from polish-level improvements

4/4 ✓

Stress

End-to-end case for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

4/4 ✓

Canonical✅ Pass

Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a journal/conference to identify major risks and revision priorities

The archived run for Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a... stayed on the narrative-deliverable path rather than a code path.

Basic 36/40|Specialized 56/60|Total 92/100

✅A1The peer-review output structure matches the documented deliverable

✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 4 / 4

Variant A✅ Pass

Internal lab/group review: For advisor or team quality control prior to external dissemination

This variant a case was handled as a bounded writing workflow, not as an executable pipeline.

Basic 34/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 88/100

✅A1The peer-review output structure matches the documented deliverable

✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 4 / 4

Edge✅ Pass

Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

The archived run for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation →... stayed on the narrative-deliverable path rather than a code path.

Basic 33/40|Specialized 53/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The peer-review output structure matches the documented deliverable

✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 4 / 4

Variant B✅ Pass

Major vs. minor issue triage: Separates publication-blocking problems from polish-level improvements

This variant b case was handled as a bounded writing workflow, not as an executable pipeline.

Basic 32/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The peer-review output structure matches the documented deliverable

✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 4 / 4

Stress✅ Pass

End-to-end case for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation

End-to-end case for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall... remained a writing-first workflow and was evaluated without depending on a runnable helper script.

Basic 29/40|Specialized 57/60|Total 86/100

✅A1The peer-review output structure matches the documented deliverable

✅A2The instruction path remains actionable for the documented case

✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary

✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path

Pass rate: 4 / 4

Medical Task Total87.6 / 100

Key Strengths

Primary routing is Academic Writing with execution mode A
Static quality score is 84/100 and dynamic average is 79.6/100
Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
Execution verification summary: No script verification was applicable