SKILLEMALL.ai

AB discussion-vocabulary-diagnosis

Diagnose vocabulary in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks (1) use of academic register and high-frequency academic expressions from the 5 functional categories in *Science Research Writing* 4.4.2, (2) appropriate modal verb usage across the 6 categories in 4.5, and (3) avoidance of colloquialisms. Triggers on "check vocabulary", "academic expressions", "hedge check", "modal verb check", "Discussion 词汇", "Discussion 用语", "讨论 学术表达", etc. Does NOT generate or rewrite prose.

ClawHub Agent Skills author: laninga v1.0.0 MIT-0 14 files body ≈ 1 052 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 3 d ago

Diagnose vocabulary in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper.

As a process B 66/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, progress reporting

AnalyzerResearchtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
96
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
66/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

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: 14. 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 66/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 85Steps. 21 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1052 tokens
    • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations

    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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 7 example trigger phrases
    • +3Description length 503: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 8 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 96.

    External checks

    ClawHub: clean
    This is a non-executable academic writing diagnosis skill with a minor risk of activating on broad vocabulary-help requests.
    LLM: benign (high) · VirusTotal: · 24 Aug 2026