Data Analysis
study-design-scale-selector
Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a medical study based on its design (RCT, Cohort, etc.), using PubMed metadata lookup or text analysis. Use when the user wants to know which quality assessment tool to use for a specific paper (given PMID or abstract).
87100Total 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
15 / 20 Passed
87Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a medical study based on its design (RCT, Cohort, etc.), using PubMed metadata lookup or text analysis
3/4
86Analyze Text (Fallback)
3/4
86Analyze Text (Fallback)
3/4
86Select Scale
3/4
86Output
3/4
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 review kept this workflow anchored to supplied data fields and observable execution behavior, not fabricated results. |
| Practice Boundaries | PASS | The evaluated outputs stayed inside the Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a medical study based on its... and did not drift into unsupported interpretation beyond the available inputs. |
| Methodological Ground | PASS | The archived review found the package methodologically anchored to a named assessment rule set. |
| Code Usability | PASS | The archived review found the packaged execution path for study-design-scale-selector usable in its intended context. |
Core Capability88 / 100 — 8 Categories
Functional Suitability
Functional suitability was softened by the legacy issue 'Improve stress-case output rigor'. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
11 / 12
92%
Reliability
The archived deduction in reliability traces back to: Improve stress-case output rigor. Stress and boundary scenarios show weaker consistency
10 / 12
83%
Performance & Context
No point loss was recorded for performance context in the legacy audit.
8 / 8
100%
Agent Usability
Agent usability was strong, but the workflow could surface its entry conditions a little more directly.
14 / 16
88%
Human Usability
Human usability reached full score in the archived evaluation.
8 / 8
100%
Security
Security remained strong, though the archived review still left some room for clearer execution guardrails.
10 / 12
83%
Maintainability
The archived review treated the package as maintainable, while still preserving some room for cleanup.
10 / 12
83%
Agent-Specific
The archived deduction in agent specific traces back to: 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: 86.2 / 100 — Assertions: 15/20 Passed
87
Canonical
Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a medical study based on its design (RCT, Cohort, etc.), using PubMed metadata lookup or text analysis
3/4 ✓
86
Variant A
Analyze Text (Fallback)
3/4 ✓
86
Edge
Analyze Text (Fallback)
3/4 ✓
86
Variant B
Select Scale
3/4 ✓
86
Stress
Output
3/4 ✓
87
Canonical✅ Pass
Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a medical study based on its design (RCT, Cohort, etc.), using PubMed metadata lookup or text analysis
Determines the appropriate Risk of Bias assessment scale for a... remains a defined path, although the preserved example command was not directly runnable because placeholder values were never resolved.
Basic 33/40|Specialized 54/60|Total 87/100
✅A1The study-design-scale-selector output structure matches the documented deliverable
❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 3 / 4
86
Variant A✅ Pass
Analyze Text (Fallback)
The archived command path for Analyze Text (Fallback) was structurally clear, yet still placeholder-bound.
Basic 31/40|Specialized 55/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The study-design-scale-selector output structure matches the documented deliverable
❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 3 / 4
86
Edge✅ Pass
Analyze Text (Fallback)
Analyze Text (Fallback) remains a defined path, although the preserved example command was not directly runnable because placeholder values were never resolved.
Basic 30/40|Specialized 56/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The study-design-scale-selector output structure matches the documented deliverable
❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 3 / 4
86
Variant B✅ Pass
Select Scale
Select Scale remains a defined path, although the preserved example command was not directly runnable because placeholder values were never resolved.
Basic 29/40|Specialized 57/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The study-design-scale-selector output structure matches the documented deliverable
❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 3 / 4
86
Stress✅ Pass
Output
The Output workflow is specified, but the execution example still depends on unresolved placeholders.
Basic 26/40|Specialized 60/60|Total 86/100
✅A1The study-design-scale-selector output structure matches the documented deliverable
❌A2The script execution path completed successfully for the documented case
✅A3The output stays fully within the documented skill boundary
✅A4The response quality is acceptable for the documented path
Pass rate: 3 / 4
Medical Task Total86.2 / 100
Key Strengths
- Primary routing is Data Analysis with execution mode B
- Static quality score is 88/100 and dynamic average is 72.6/100
- Assertions and command execution outcomes are recorded per input for human review
- Execution verification summary: Script verification 2/2; adjustment=5. extract_pdf.py: OK; selector.py: OK