Protocol Design
protocol-standardization
Standardize fragmented experimental steps into reproducible protocol documents when you need method organization, lab SOP drafting, or cross-operator reproducibility; missing parameters must be explicitly marked as "To be supplemented/Not provided".
85100Total Score
Core Capability
81 / 100
Functional Suitability
10 / 12
Reliability
9 / 12
Performance & Context
7 / 8
Agent Usability
13 / 16
Human Usability
8 / 8
Security
10 / 12
Maintainability
9 / 12
Agent-Specific
15 / 20
Medical Task
20 / 20 Passed
92You have messy notes (chat logs, notebook fragments, bullet points) and need a formal, reproducible experimental protocol
4/4
88You are preparing a lab SOP for standardization across multiple operators or sites
4/4
86Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
4/4
86Enforces parameter completeness for reproducibility (e.g., temperature, time, concentration, volume, mixing/rotation speed)
4/4
86End-to-end case for Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
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 archived evaluation treated outputs as protocol guidance to be tested later, not as validated experimental findings. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The package remained on the planning side of the boundary and did not cross into clinical or diagnostic advice. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The legacy review kept the package aligned with its named analysis library, data structure, or processing workflow. |
| Code Usability | N/A | The audited artifact centers on document or reasoning outputs, so code usability is not the main evaluation target here. |
Core Capability81 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
Related legacy finding for protocol-standardization: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
10 / 12
83%
Reliability
Related legacy finding for protocol-standardization: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
9 / 12
75%
Performance & Context
The archived evaluation left minor headroom in how efficiently the workflow handles heavier planning contexts.
7 / 8
88%
Agent Usability
The planning path is understandable, but the archived score suggests a little more trigger clarity would help agents route into it faster.
13 / 16
81%
Human Usability
No point loss was recorded for human usability in the legacy audit.
8 / 8
100%
Security
Security scored well, though the archived review still left some room to make boundary language even more explicit.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
Maintainability held up, but a little more consolidation or clearer packaging 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
15 / 20
75%
Core Capability Total81 / 100
Medical TaskExecution Average: 87.6 / 100 — Assertions: 20/20 Passed
92
Canonical
You have messy notes (chat logs, notebook fragments, bullet points) and need a formal, reproducible experimental protocol
4/4 ✓
88
Variant A
You are preparing a lab SOP for standardization across multiple operators or sites
4/4 ✓
86
Edge
Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
4/4 ✓
86
Variant B
Enforces parameter completeness for reproducibility (e.g., temperature, time, concentration, volume, mixing/rotation speed)
4/4 ✓
86
Stress
End-to-end case for Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
4/4 ✓
92
Canonical✅ Pass
You have messy notes (chat logs, notebook fragments, bullet points) and need a formal, reproducible experimental protocol
You have messy notes (chat logs, notebook fragments, bullet points)... stayed in planning mode and returned a bounded design deliverable without relying on a runnable script.
Basic 35/40|Specialized 57/60|Total 92/100
✅A1The protocol-standardization 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
You are preparing a lab SOP for standardization across multiple operators or sites
The archived run treated You are preparing a lab SOP for standardization across multiple... as a protocol-design path rather than an executable workflow.
Basic 33/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 88/100
✅A1The protocol-standardization 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
Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
The archived run treated Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol... as a protocol-design path rather than an executable workflow.
Basic 32/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The protocol-standardization 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
Enforces parameter completeness for reproducibility (e.g., temperature, time, concentration, volume, mixing/rotation speed)
Enforces parameter completeness for reproducibility (e.g.,... stayed in planning mode and returned a bounded design deliverable without relying on a runnable script.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The protocol-standardization 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 Converts fragmented experimental steps into a standardized protocol structure (prep → execution → closing)
This stress case remained a study-design support path, not a code-driven execution run.
Basic 28/40|Specialized 58/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The protocol-standardization 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 Protocol Design with execution mode A
- Static quality score is 81/100 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