reforms-grading
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Tactic: Grade an ML/CS paper''s reproducibility configuration reporting as complete, partial, or none after checking that clinical appraisal tools do not apply. Use when the question is whether the work can be rerun.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- acu-nugget-recallSkill
- argumentative-zoningSkill
- atomic-unit-matchingSkill
- atomic-unit-recall-aggregateSkill
- atomic-unit-writingSkill
- claim-label-predictionSkill
- claim-writingSkill
- domain-level-judgmentSkill
- dual-column-self-checkSkill
- engineering-config-gradingSkill
- first-pass-skimSkill
- keshav-three-passSkill
- multi-stage-cascade-extractionSkill
- paper-fetchSkill
- qalmriSkill
- qalmri-worksheetSkill
- qasper-evidence-qaSkill
- quality-appraisal-checklistSkill
- question-framingSkill
- rationale-selectionSkill
- reporting-standard-checklistSkill
- reproducibility-third-party-verificationSkill
- research-question-appraisalSkill
- rhetorical-structure-qualitySkill
- second-pass-graspSkill
- signalling-question-answeringSkill
- star-awardingSkill
- study-design-tool-gateSkill
- sum-threshold-scoringSkill
- template-slot-fillingSkill
- third-pass-deep-readSkill
- unit-classificationSkill
- unit-segmentationSkill
- worst-case-lookupSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 26
Run study-design-tool-gate and write its verdict to 01-study-design-tool-gate.json.
- Very specific: line 28
If it selects a clinical/review instrument, stop and name that tool.
- Very specific: line 30
Run engineering-config-grading, using that tool name when the gate returned not_applicable, and write 02-engineering-config-grading.json.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
REFORMS Grading
Orchestration Pattern
- Fetch the paper; stop on
not_found. - Run
study-design-tool-gateand write its verdict to01-study-design-tool-gate.json. - If it selects a clinical/review instrument, stop and name that tool. If it
selects
engineering-config-gradingor returnsnot_applicable, proceed. - Run
engineering-config-grading, using that tool name when the gate returnednot_applicable, and write02-engineering-config-grading.json.
Record proposal_sop: true. Each justification must state what complete
reporting would look like before grading the paper. Report the gate verdict,
complete/partial/none counts, every none item, the unverified-proposal
caveat, and both paths.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.