mirror of
https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code.git
synced 2026-05-14 02:10:07 +08:00
161 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
161 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: scholar-evaluation
|
|
description: Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback.
|
|
origin: community
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Scholar Evaluation
|
|
|
|
Use this skill to evaluate academic or scientific work with a repeatable rubric.
|
|
|
|
## When to Use
|
|
|
|
- Reviewing a research paper, proposal, thesis chapter, or literature review.
|
|
- Checking whether claims are supported by cited evidence.
|
|
- Evaluating methodology, study design, analysis, or limitations.
|
|
- Comparing two or more papers for quality or relevance.
|
|
- Producing structured feedback for revision.
|
|
|
|
## Evaluation Scope
|
|
|
|
Start by identifying the artifact:
|
|
|
|
- empirical research paper
|
|
- theoretical paper
|
|
- technical report
|
|
- systematic or narrative literature review
|
|
- research proposal
|
|
- thesis or dissertation chapter
|
|
- conference abstract or short paper
|
|
|
|
Then choose scope:
|
|
|
|
- **comprehensive**: all rubric dimensions
|
|
- **targeted**: one or two dimensions, such as method or citations
|
|
- **comparative**: rank multiple works against the same rubric
|
|
|
|
## Rubric
|
|
|
|
Score each applicable dimension from 1 to 5:
|
|
|
|
- 5: excellent; clear, rigorous, and publication-ready
|
|
- 4: good; minor improvements needed
|
|
- 3: adequate; meaningful gaps but usable
|
|
- 2: weak; substantial revision needed
|
|
- 1: poor; major validity or clarity problems
|
|
|
|
Use `N/A` for dimensions that do not apply.
|
|
|
|
### 1. Problem and Research Question
|
|
|
|
- Is the problem clear and specific?
|
|
- Is the contribution meaningful?
|
|
- Are scope and assumptions explicit?
|
|
- Does the question match the claimed contribution?
|
|
|
|
### 2. Literature and Context
|
|
|
|
- Is relevant prior work covered?
|
|
- Does the work synthesize rather than merely list sources?
|
|
- Are gaps accurately identified?
|
|
- Are recent and foundational sources balanced?
|
|
|
|
### 3. Methodology
|
|
|
|
- Does the method answer the research question?
|
|
- Are design choices justified?
|
|
- Are variables, datasets, participants, or materials described clearly?
|
|
- Could another researcher reproduce the work?
|
|
- Are ethical and practical constraints acknowledged?
|
|
|
|
### 4. Data and Evidence
|
|
|
|
- Are data sources credible and appropriate?
|
|
- Is sample size or corpus coverage adequate?
|
|
- Are inclusion, exclusion, and preprocessing decisions documented?
|
|
- Are missing data and bias risks discussed?
|
|
|
|
### 5. Analysis
|
|
|
|
- Are statistical, qualitative, or computational methods appropriate?
|
|
- Are baselines and controls fair?
|
|
- Are uncertainty, sensitivity, or robustness checks included when needed?
|
|
- Are alternative explanations considered?
|
|
|
|
### 6. Results and Interpretation
|
|
|
|
- Are results clearly presented?
|
|
- Do claims stay within the evidence?
|
|
- Are figures, tables, and metrics understandable?
|
|
- Are negative or null results handled honestly?
|
|
|
|
### 7. Limitations and Threats to Validity
|
|
|
|
- Are limitations specific rather than generic?
|
|
- Are internal, external, construct, and conclusion-validity risks addressed?
|
|
- Does the paper distinguish speculation from demonstrated results?
|
|
|
|
### 8. Writing and Structure
|
|
|
|
- Is the argument easy to follow?
|
|
- Are sections organized around the research question?
|
|
- Are definitions and notation clear?
|
|
- Is the tone precise and scholarly?
|
|
|
|
### 9. Citations
|
|
|
|
- Do cited papers support the claims attached to them?
|
|
- Are primary sources used where possible?
|
|
- Are reviews labeled as reviews?
|
|
- Are preprints labeled as preprints?
|
|
- Are citation metadata and links correct?
|
|
|
|
## Review Process
|
|
|
|
1. Read the abstract, introduction, figures, and conclusion for claimed
|
|
contribution.
|
|
2. Read methods and results for evidence quality.
|
|
3. Check the strongest claims against cited sources.
|
|
4. Score each applicable dimension.
|
|
5. Separate critical blockers from revision suggestions.
|
|
6. End with concrete next edits.
|
|
|
|
## Output Template
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# Scholar Evaluation: <Artifact>
|
|
|
|
## Overall Assessment
|
|
|
|
- Overall score: <1-5 or N/A>
|
|
- Confidence: <high | medium | low>
|
|
- Summary: <3-5 sentences>
|
|
|
|
## Dimension Scores
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Revision priority |
|
|
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
|
|
| Problem and question | | | |
|
|
| Literature and context | | | |
|
|
| Methodology | | | |
|
|
| Data and evidence | | | |
|
|
| Analysis | | | |
|
|
| Results and interpretation | | | |
|
|
| Limitations | | | |
|
|
| Writing and structure | | | |
|
|
| Citations | | | |
|
|
|
|
## Critical Issues
|
|
|
|
## Recommended Revisions
|
|
|
|
## Evidence Checks Needed
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Pitfalls
|
|
|
|
- Do not use the score as a substitute for concrete feedback.
|
|
- Do not penalize a paper for omitting a dimension outside its scope.
|
|
- Do not treat citation count, venue, or author reputation as proof of quality.
|
|
- Do not accept unsupported claims just because they appear in the abstract.
|