SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC exploratory-data-analysis

Perform comprehensive exploratory data analysis on scientific data files across 200+ file formats. This skill should be used when analyzing any scientific data file to understand its structure, content, quality, and characteristics. Automatically detects file type and generates detailed markdown reports with format-specific analysis, quality metrics, and downstream analysis recommendations. Covers chemistry, bioinformatics, microscopy, spectroscopy, proteomics, metabolomics, and general scientific data formats.

FreedomIntelligence/OpenClaw-Medical-Skills Agent Skills author: FreedomIntelligence 9 files · 1 script body ≈ 3 418 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 11 h ago

Perform comprehensive exploratory data analysis on scientific data files across 200+ file formats.

As a process C 53/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

AnalyzerData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
53/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 53/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (read, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 121 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3418 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 516: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 41 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 121 items
    • +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.