CD academic-figures
Publication-ready scientific figures from one command — 27 chart types (bar, slope, volcano, grouped bar, scatter, heatmap, forest plot, KM survival curve (Kaplan-Meier, ROC, violin, box, composite panels, PRISMA 2020 flow, funnel, Bland-Altman, PCA, venn 2-4 sets, upset set intersections (5+ sets), oncology waterfall (RECIST), raincloud (cloud+box+rain trio), clustered heatmap, dual-axis, Cox multi-variable regression forest), 9 themes incl. colorblind-safe Okabe-Ito and NEJM/Lancet/Science journal palettes, 9 journal submission presets, YAML figure pipeline (a whole paper in one command), multi-format export (TIFF/PNG/PDF in one run), Python API, --wizard chart picker, render watchdog with auto-degrade retry, reviewer-style --annotate arrows, PDF text-overlap + font-size gates, 600dpi output. 100% local — data never leaves your machine.
Publication-ready scientific figures from one command — 27 chart types (bar, slope, volcano, grouped bar, scatter, heatmap, forest plot, KM survival curve…
As a process D 46/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: scripts/journal/*.json, templates/README.md
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- 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: 78. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6189 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: scripts/journal/*.json - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: templates/README.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 287): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 46/100
- 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: scripts/journal/*.json, templates/README.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6189 tokens
- 100Steps. 23 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 24 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (3 tags): a typed call is more reliable
- medium 14 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
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)
- +3Description length 850: 120–800 characters recommended
- -214 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- -36 of 11 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 25 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 23 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (9 of 15)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 52.