MedSkillAudit: A Domain-Specific Audit Framework for Medical Research Agent Skills

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20441v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:01:48 GMT
• Title: MedSkillAudit: A Domain-Specific Audit Framework for Medical Research Agent Skills
• Abstract summary: This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills.<n>We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category)<n>The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold.
• Score: 7.84691221924879
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

Related papers

• Beyond AI Literacy: A Structured Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis of Measures for Competent Generative-AI Use [0.0]
  Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance.<n>We conducted a structured, seeded review of 24 focal empirical publications.<n>We found no validated individual-level instrument in the focal corpus that tests the full combination of agent scope, permissions, recovery, state isolation, independent review, and evidence-based closure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T14:16:18Z)
• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• RISED: A Pre-Deployment Safety Evaluation Framework for Clinical AI Decision-Support Systems [0.0]
  We propose a five-dimension pre-deployment evaluation covering Reliability, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Equity, and Deployability.<n> RISED is released as an open-source Python package that supplies the quantitative verdicts existing clinical AI reporting standards require.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T02:17:13Z)
• Multi-Agent Reasoning with Consistency Verification Improves Uncertainty Calibration in Medical MCQA [0.0]
  Multi-agent framework combines domain-specific specialist agents with Two-Phase Verification and S-Score Weighted Fusion.<n>Four specialist agents generate independent diagnoses using Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.<n>S-scores drive a weighted fusion strategy that selects the final answer and calibrates reported confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T16:22:53Z)
• ResearchGym: Evaluating Language Model Agents on Real-World AI Research [48.46915933681714]
  We introduce ResearchGym, a benchmark and execution environment for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end research.<n>To instantiate this, we repurpose five oral and spotlight papers from ICML, ICLR, and ACL.<n>In a controlled evaluation of an agent powered by GPT-5, we observe a sharp capability--reliability gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T19:00:03Z)
• A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing [0.4349324020366305]
  Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling.<n>We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T14:17:27Z)
• Automated Rubrics for Reliable Evaluation of Medical Dialogue Systems [19.880569341968023]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety.<n>We propose a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework designed to automate the generation of instance-specific evaluation rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:40:41Z)
• DispatchMAS: Fusing taxonomy and artificial intelligence agents for emergency medical services [49.70819009392778]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) offer opportunities to augment dispatchers.<n>This study aimed to develop and evaluate a taxonomy-grounded, multi-agent system for simulating realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T08:01:21Z)
• ReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer Review [23.630458187587223]
  ReviewerToo is a framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review.<n>It supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria.<n>We show how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T23:53:19Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning [69.46279475491164]
  We introduce DeepRare, the first rare disease diagnosis agentic system powered by a large language model (LLM)<n>DeepRare generates ranked diagnostic hypotheses for rare diseases, each accompanied by a transparent chain of reasoning.<n>The system demonstrates exceptional diagnostic performance among 2,919 diseases, achieving 100% accuracy for 1013 diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T13:42:26Z)
• AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents [0.0]
  This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents.<n>It uses modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents.<n>It achieves 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:46:15Z)
• Better than Random: Reliable NLG Human Evaluation with Constrained Active Sampling [50.08315607506652]
  We propose a Constrained Active Sampling Framework (CASF) for reliable human judgment. Experiment results show CASF receives 93.18% top-ranked system recognition accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T07:44:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.