Academic Writing
peer-review
Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.
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
PASSResearch 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
92
Canonical
Pre-submission manuscript check: Before submitting to a journal/conference to identify major risks and revision priorities
4/4 ✓
88
Variant A
Internal lab/group review: For advisor or team quality control prior to external dissemination
4/4 ✓
86
Edge
Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation
4/4 ✓
86
Variant B
Major vs. minor issue triage: Separates publication-blocking problems from polish-level improvements
4/4 ✓
86
Stress
End-to-end case for Structured end-to-end review workflow: Overall evaluation → methods/results check → issue organization → recommendation
4/4 ✓
92
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
88
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
86
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
86
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
86
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