medical-imaging-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited medical-imaging-review (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Write comprehensive literature reviews following a systematic 7-phase workflow.
CLAUDE.md - Writing guidelines and terminologyIMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md - Staged execution planmanuscript_draft.md - Main manuscriptTopic sentence (main claim)
→ Supporting evidence (citations + data)
→ Analysis (critical evaluation)
→ Transition to next paragraphUse multi-source strategy for comprehensive coverage:
| Source | Best For | Tools |
|---|---|---|
| ArXiv | Latest DL methods, preprints | search_papers, read_paper |
| PubMed | Clinical validation, peer-reviewed | pubmed_search_articles |
| Zotero | Existing library, organized refs | zotero_search_items |
For MCP configuration details, see references/MCP_SETUP.md.
# [Title]: State of the Art and Future Directions
## Key Points
- [3-5 bullets summarizing main findings]
## Abstract
## 1. Introduction
### 1.1 Clinical Background
### 1.2 Technical Challenges
### 1.3 Scope and Contributions
## 2. Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
### 2.1 Public Datasets (Table 1)
### 2.2 Evaluation Metrics
## 3. Deep Learning Methods
### 3.1 [Category 1]
### 3.2 [Category 2]
(Table 2: Method Comparison)
## 4. Downstream Applications
## 5. Commercial Products & Clinical Translation (Table 3)
## 6. Discussion
### 6.1 Current Limitations
### 6.2 Future Directions
## 7. Conclusion
## References### 3.X [Method Category]
[1-2 paragraph introduction with motivation]
**[Method Name]:** [Author] et al. [ref] proposed [method], which [innovation]:
- [Key component 1]
- [Key component 2]
Achieves Dice of X.XX on [dataset].
**Limitations:** Despite advantages, [category] methods face:
(1) [limit 1]; (2) [limit 2].# Data citation
"...achieved Dice of 0.89 [23]"
# Method citation
"Gu et al. [45] proposed..."
# Multi-citation
"Several studies demonstrated... [12, 15, 23]"
# Comparative
"While [12] focused on..., [15] addressed..."| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| references/WORKFLOW.md | Detailed 7-phase workflow |
| references/TEMPLATES.md | CLAUDE.md and IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md templates |
| references/DOMAINS.md | Domain-specific method categories |
| references/MCP_SETUP.md | MCP server configuration |
| references/QUALITY_CHECKLIST.md | Pre-submission quality checklist |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.