Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Intake and normalize a new radiology research project. Classifies project type, summarizes current state, identifies missing inputs, recommends next steps, and scaffolds lightweight project memory files.
.claude/skills/aperivue-intake-project/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 64% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 128% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 111% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 70% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 184% | 0% |
This skill is the front door for a new or messy project. It converts a folder, document bundle, or mixed set of notes into a structured project state that other skills can use safely.
Use this skill when:
Accept any of the following:
If information is incomplete, infer cautiously from file names and contents, then label uncertain items clearly.
Determine:
original | review | meta-analysis | case report | technical note | grant | peer review | challenge | career-docradiology | medical AI | multimodal LLM | intervention | survival/prognostic | diagnostic accuracy | workflowpaper | abstract | grant | review | rebuttal | CVIdentify:
If missing, propose or create lightweight anchor files:
PROJECT.mdSTATUS.mdCLAIMS.mdDATA_DICTIONARY.mdANALYSIS_PLAN.mdREVIEW_LOG.mdCreate only files that are justified by the project type.
Produce the next 3-5 actions in dependency order.
For any manuscript project (cohort, MA, RCT, case series), enforce this structure when scaffolding or reorganizing. Map every new artifact into one of these slots — do not invent ad-hoc folders.
{project_root}/
├── HANDOFF.md # session handoff entry point
├── README.md # project overview
├── data/ # raw data (NEVER edit; read-only)
├── analysis/ # reproducible scripts (00_* → 04_*)
├── output/ # analysis outputs: CSVs, PNGs, intermediates
├── irb/ # IRB/ethics docs
├── proposal/ # original protocol / approved proposal
├── reviews/ # external correspondence
├── manuscript/ # SOURCE manuscript + drafting
│ ├── manuscript_v{N}.{md,docx,pdf} # current canonical working version (top level)
│ ├── build_unified_docx.py # or pandoc wrapper
│ ├── archive/ # ALL prior versions v1 .. v{N-1}
│ ├── reviews/ # QC: self_review, peer_review, STROBE/PRISMA, critic
│ ├── figures/ # figure scripts + rendered PNG/PDF
│ └── tables/ # table scripts + rendered docx
└── submission/ # per-journal packages
└── {journal-slug}/ # e.g., chest/, kjr/
├── CHECKLIST.md
├── cover_letter.{md,docx,pdf}
├── title_page.docx # separated for double-anonymized
├── manuscript_anonymized.{docx,pdf}
├── supplement.{docx,pdf}
├── strobe_checklist.md # or PRISMA / CONSORT
├── circulation_email.md
└── figures/ # submission-ready DPI copiesmanuscript/ = source; submission/{journal}/ = derived artifacts. Regenerate submission files from manuscript/manuscript_v{N}.md; never edit anonymized/title-page directly.manuscript/manuscript_v{N}.{md,docx,pdf}. Older versions move to manuscript/archive/ immediately on version bump.HANDOFF.md, README.md, folder entries.manuscript/reviews/, not at manuscript top level.cp -r submission/{old} submission/{new}, then rewrite cover letter and reformat.submission/{journal}/.submission/{journal}/ and populate.manuscript/ has >3 versioned files or QC docs at top level, reorganize.Why it pays off: moving version drafts and QC docs off the manuscript/ top level makes retargeting a different journal a single cp -r submission/<journal> submission/<new_journal>.
Assign one current stage:
ideadata assemblyanalysis planninganalysis in progressdraftingrevisionsubmission preparchived/unclearGate: Present the classification (project type, stage, target output) to the user. Confirm before creating any files — misclassification leads to wrong scaffold and wrong skill routing.
Check for common gaps:
Output this structure:
text## Project Intake Summary Project: ... Type: ... Current stage: ... Likely target: ... ### What exists - ... ### What is missing - ... ### Risks / ambiguities - ... ### Recommended next actions 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...
PROJECT.mdmd# PROJECT - Title: - Type: - Primary question: - Target journal/venue: - Lead folder: - Collaborators: - Last updated:
STATUS.mdmd# STATUS - Current stage: - Current blocker: - Next actions: 1. 2. 3. - Last updated:
After intake:
search-lit if the literature basis is weakdesign-study if the research question exists but design logic is unclearmanage-project if the folder should be scaffoldedwrite-paper only after the project phase is clearly drafting| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 34,827 | 14,917 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,551 | 4,496 | -31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 15,198 | 19,700 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,784 | 5,638 | +103% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 24,336 | 11,352 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,345 | 3,798 | +14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 18,611 | 16,066 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,972 | 4,875 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 21,264 | 13,167 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,135 | 4,205 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | 12,131 | 20,305 | +67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,891 | 5,136 | +172% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | 2,777 | 3,724 | +34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 441 | 2,517 | +471% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 11,894 | 11,009 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,855 | 3,837 | +107% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 7,942 | 5,618 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,305 | 2,978 | +128% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 9,721 | 6,796 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,527 | 3,083 | +102% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 14,055 | 10,482 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,204 | 3,573 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 9,713 | 5,981 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,631 | 3,028 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 9,750 | 8,475 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,615 | 3,414 | +111% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 11,228 | 7,806 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,956 | 3,318 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 7,526 | 5,404 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,200 | 2,820 | +135% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 6,506 | 4,231 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,018 | 2,647 | +160% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,544 | 8,423 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,538 | 3,397 | +121% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 11,973 | 6,041 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,986 | 3,059 | +54% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 5,759 | 6,138 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,041 | 2,956 | +184% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 8,857 | 7,134 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,517 | 3,147 | +107% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 3,181 | 8,161 | +157% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 505 | 3,287 | +551% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 10,632 | 7,444 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,863 | 3,119 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 10,612 | 6,248 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,940 | 3,111 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 8/24/2026 | +50% |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.