Academic Writing
peer-review-response-drafter
85100Total Score
Core Capability
88 / 100
Functional Suitability
11 / 12
Reliability
10 / 12
Performance & Context
8 / 8
Agent Usability
14 / 16
Human Usability
8 / 8
Security
10 / 12
Maintainability
10 / 12
Agent-Specific
17 / 20
Medical Task
18 / 20 Passed
90Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
4/4
86Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4
84Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
4/4
82Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4
76End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
2/4
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 | The evaluated outputs stayed inside the Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger workflow rather than drifting into unsupported scientific interpretation. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | No methodological-grounding issue was recorded for peer-review-response-drafter 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 Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
Functional fit remained strong, though the final communication package could still be a little tighter.
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
Reliability was softened by the legacy issue 'Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior'. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
10 / 12
83%
Performance & Context
The legacy audit gave full marks to performance context for this package.
8 / 8
100%
Agent Usability
The archived score suggests slightly clearer routing would help an agent choose the right dissemination path faster.
14 / 16
88%
Human Usability
No point loss was recorded for human usability in the legacy audit.
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 archived review treated the package as maintainable overall, while still leaving some cleanup headroom.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
Related legacy finding for peer-review-response-drafter: Stabilize executable path and fallback behavior. Some inputs only reached PARTIAL due to execution gaps or weak boundary handling
17 / 20
85%
Core Capability Total88 / 100
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
90
Canonical
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
4/4 ✓
86
Variant A
Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
4/4 ✓
84
Edge
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
4/4 ✓
82
Variant B
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
4/4 ✓
76
Stress
End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
2/4 ✓
90
Canonical✅ Pass
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
Basic 38/40|Specialized 52/60|Total 90/100
✅A1The peer-review-response-drafter output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
86
Variant A✅ Pass
Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format
Use this skill for academic writing tasks that require explicit... remained well-aligned with the documented contract in the preserved audit.
Basic 36/40|Specialized 50/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The peer-review-response-drafter output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
84
Edge✅ Pass
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
For Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger, the preserved evidence is lightweight but positive: the packaged validation command behaved as expected.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 49/60|Total 84/100
✅A1The peer-review-response-drafter output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
82
Variant B✅ Pass
Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger boundary.
Basic 34/40|Specialized 48/60|Total 82/100
✅A1The peer-review-response-drafter output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
✅A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
✅A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 4 / 4
76
Stress✅ Pass
End-to-end case for Scope-focused workflow aligned to: Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger
The main issue in this stress run was: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 45/60|Total 76/100
✅A1The peer-review-response-drafter output structure covers required deliverable blocks
✅A2Script execution path is available (command exit code is 0)
❌A3The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective
❌A4Required research safety/boundary guidance is present without overclaims
Pass rate: 2 / 4
Medical Task Total83.6 / 100
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