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.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill score --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Score?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-score)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!