This framework audits medical LLM benchmarks across five lifecycle phases using 46 medically tailored criteria to assess clinical relevance, data integrity, safety-critical capabilities, validity, and governance. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute score.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Score?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-score)
---
name: score
description: This framework audits medical LLM benchmarks across five lifecycle phases using 46 medically tailored criteria to assess clinical relevance, data integrity, safety-critical capabilities, validity, and governance. Use when the user has predictions and gold and needs to compute score.
metadata:
skill_kind: metric
source_arxiv: 2508.04325
bibtex_key: ma2025beyond
confidence: high
---
# score
> Beyond the Leaderboard: Rethinking Medical Benchmarks for Large Language Models — Ma et al. (2025) (arXiv:2508.04325, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This framework audits medical LLM benchmarks across five lifecycle phases using 46 medically tailored criteria to assess clinical relevance, data integrity, safety-critical capabilities, validity, and governance.
## Datasets
- (no dataset; pure metric skill)
## Metrics
- `score` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Count of satisfied criteria out of 46 total across five phases (Design, Dataset Construction, Technical Implementation, Benchmark Validity, Documentation/Governance), reported as a percentage.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Documentation and design details of a medical LLM benchmark to be audited.
**Output**: Binary or categorical assessment for each of the 46 MedCheck criteria.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_score(benchmark):
satisfied = sum(1 for c in criteria if benchmark.meets(c))
return (satisfied / 46) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Scoring relies on qualitative expert judgment rather than automated computation, risking subjectivity.
- The score evaluates benchmark design quality, not model inference performance, so it cannot replace standard accuracy metrics.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> This phase is the most underdeveloped in our analysis (average score: 52.4%), revealing a profound gap between current practice and the requirements for reliable medical AI.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{ma2025beyond,
title={Beyond the Leaderboard: Rethinking Medical Benchmarks for Large Language Models},
author={Ma et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2508.04325}
}
```
- arXiv: 2508.04325