pubmed-search-specialist
Build complex Boolean query strings for precise PubMed/MEDLINE literature retrieval. Trigger when user needs MeSH term mapping, Boolean query construction, advanced PubMed filters, citation searching, systematic review search strategy, or clinical query optimization.
Veto GatesRequired pass for any deployment consideration
| Dimension | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity | PASS | The archived evaluation kept the skill tied to retrieved records or indexed source material rather than invented scientific claims. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The legacy review kept this workflow on the evidence-access side of the boundary, not the advice-giving side. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The older review treated the package logic as methodologically aligned with its stated workflow. |
| Code Usability | PASS | Code usability passed because the search or lookup workflow still exposed a usable entrypoint and output expectation. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Medical TaskExecution Average: 83.6 / 100 — Assertions: 18/20 Passed
The Build complex Boolean query strings for precise PubMed/MEDLINE... scenario completed within the documented Build complex Boolean query strings for precise PubMed/MEDLINE literature retrieval.... boundary.
The archived evaluation treated Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit... as a clean in-scope run.
The Build complex Boolean query strings for precise PubMed/MEDLINE... path verified the packaged helper command without exposing a deeper execution issue.
The Packaged executable path(s): scripts/main.py scenario completed within the documented Build complex Boolean query strings for precise PubMed/MEDLINE literature retrieval.... boundary.
This stress case was mostly intact, but the archived review centered its concern on: The output stays within declared skill scope and target objective.
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Evidence Insight 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