scholar-evaluation
Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback. Use when evaluating academic or scientific work — papers, proposals, methods sections, or evidence quality — against a repeatable rubric.
- Kind
- Skill
- Works with
- Claude Code, Codex
- Source
- affaan-m/ECC @ d3b8a3e90890
- Path
- skills/scientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
- License
- MIT
- Jobs
- Review, Documentation
InstallCopy it from the source repository, or sign in and let the assistant adapt it for your project.
# 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. …