@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.18

package/dist/skills/research-proposal/references/QUALITY_CHECKLIST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+# Quality Checklist for Research Proposals
+
+Use this checklist to verify the quality of generated research proposals.
+
+---
+
+## Structure Verification
+
+### Overall Document
+- [ ] Title is concise (10-15 words) and informative
+- [ ] All required sections present
+- [ ] Sections in logical order
+- [ ] Word counts within specified ranges
+- [ ] Consistent formatting throughout
+- [ ] Page numbers included (if applicable)
+
+### Section Completeness
+
+#### Abstract (150-300 words)
+- [ ] Background/context provided
+- [ ] Research problem clearly stated
+- [ ] Objectives/questions articulated
+- [ ] Methodology briefly described
+- [ ] Expected significance mentioned
+- [ ] No citations in abstract
+- [ ] No undefined abbreviations
+
+#### Introduction (500-800 words)
+- [ ] Background establishes context
+- [ ] Problem statement is specific
+- [ ] Research questions/objectives clear
+- [ ] Scope defined appropriately
+- [ ] Logical flow from broad to specific
+
+#### Literature Review (500-1000 words)
+- [ ] Theoretical framework established
+- [ ] Current research state summarized
+- [ ] Research gap clearly identified
+- [ ] Study positioned within literature
+- [ ] Synthesis, not just summary
+- [ ] Recent sources included (last 5 years)
+
+#### Methodology (500-800 words)
+- [ ] Research design justified
+- [ ] Data collection methods described
+- [ ] Analysis approach explained
+- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
+- [ ] Ethical considerations addressed (if applicable)
+
+#### Timeline (200-300 words)
+- [ ] Major phases identified
+- [ ] Milestones specified
+- [ ] Timeline realistic for PhD duration
+- [ ] Dependencies considered
+
+#### Significance (200-400 words)
+- [ ] Theoretical contributions stated
+- [ ] Practical implications described
+- [ ] Broader impact discussed
+- [ ] Claims appropriately hedged
+
+#### References
+- [ ] **Minimum 40 citations** for PhD proposal
+- [ ] Citation format consistent
+- [ ] Mix of foundational and recent works (~40% classic, ~60% recent 5 years)
+- [ ] All in-text citations have matching references
+- [ ] No orphan references (cited but not referenced)
+- [ ] Balance across different research groups/institutions
+
+#### Figures (3-5 suggested)
+- [ ] Figure suggestions included at appropriate locations
+- [ ] Each suggestion includes: title, content description, style recommendation
+- [ ] Figures distributed across sections (Introduction, Methodology, Timeline)
+- [ ] No figure in Abstract
+- [ ] Each figure serves clear communicative purpose
+
+---
+
+## Content Quality
+
+### Research Design
+- [ ] Research questions are answerable
+- [ ] Questions align with methodology
+- [ ] Scope achievable within PhD timeframe
+- [ ] Original contribution evident
+- [ ] Builds on existing research appropriately
+
+### Argumentation
+- [ ] Claims supported by evidence
+- [ ] Logic is sound and traceable
+- [ ] Counterarguments acknowledged
+- [ ] Gap justifies proposed research
+- [ ] Conclusions follow from premises
+
+### Literature Engagement
+- [ ] Key works in field cited
+- [ ] Seminal papers included
+- [ ] Recent developments covered
+- [ ] Critical analysis present
+- [ ] Theoretical framework appropriate
+
+### Methodology Rigor
+- [ ] Methods match research questions
+- [ ] Data collection feasible
+- [ ] Analysis approach appropriate
+- [ ] Validity/reliability addressed
+- [ ] Limitations honestly stated
+
+---
+
+## Academic Writing Quality
+
+### Writing Style (CRITICAL)
+- [ ] **Prose-based writing** - content flows as connected paragraphs
+- [ ] **Minimal bullet points** - lists used ONLY where truly necessary
+- [ ] Appropriate list usage limited to: research questions, timeline milestones, technical specs
+- [ ] No point-by-point enumeration of ideas that should be narrated
+- [ ] Smooth transitions between ideas within paragraphs
+- [ ] **No appendix sections** - all content in main body
+
+### Language and Tone
+- [ ] Formal academic register
+- [ ] No colloquialisms or slang
+- [ ] Consistent tense usage
+- [ ] Appropriate voice (active/passive)
+- [ ] Technical terms defined
+
+### Hedging
+- [ ] No absolute claims without evidence
+- [ ] Modal verbs used appropriately (may, might, could)
+- [ ] Tentative language for predictions
+- [ ] Phrases like "suggests," "indicates" for findings
+- [ ] No overstatement of significance
+
+### Sentence Structure
+- [ ] Topic sentences clear
+- [ ] Varied sentence length
+- [ ] Complex ideas broken down
+- [ ] No run-on sentences
+- [ ] No sentence fragments
+
+### Paragraph Structure
+- [ ] One main idea per paragraph
+- [ ] 4-8 sentences typical length
+- [ ] Clear topic sentence
+- [ ] Supporting evidence present
+- [ ] Smooth transitions
+
+### Transitions
+- [ ] Logical flow between paragraphs
+- [ ] Appropriate connectors used
+- [ ] Signposting for reader
+- [ ] No abrupt topic changes
+- [ ] Section transitions explicit
+
+---
+
+## Technical Accuracy
+
+### Citations
+- [ ] Format matches discipline standard (APA/MLA/Chicago)
+- [ ] In-text citations correct
+- [ ] Reference list complete
+- [ ] DOIs/URLs included where available
+- [ ] Author names accurate
+
+### Abbreviations and Terms
+- [ ] All abbreviations defined at first use
+- [ ] Acronyms used consistently
+- [ ] Technical terms explained
+- [ ] Discipline-specific jargon appropriate
+- [ ] No unexplained symbols
+
+### Numbers and Data
+- [ ] Consistent number formatting
+- [ ] Units specified correctly
+- [ ] Statistics reported properly
+- [ ] Percentages calculated correctly
+- [ ] Sample sizes justified
+
+### Formatting
+- [ ] Heading hierarchy consistent
+- [ ] Font and spacing uniform
+- [ ] Lists formatted properly
+- [ ] Tables/figures labeled (if any)
+- [ ] Markdown syntax correct
+
+---
+
+## Domain-Specific Checks
+
+### STEM Proposals
+- [ ] Hypotheses specific and testable
+- [ ] Variables operationally defined
+- [ ] Equipment/software specified
+- [ ] Protocols detailed
+- [ ] Validation approach described
+- [ ] Preliminary data included (if applicable)
+- [ ] Reproducibility considered
+
+### Humanities Proposals
+- [ ] Central argument clear
+- [ ] Theoretical sophistication demonstrated
+- [ ] Primary sources identified
+- [ ] Archive/field access addressed
+- [ ] Chapter outline provided
+- [ ] Language requirements noted
+- [ ] Interpretive framework justified
+
+### Social Sciences Proposals
+- [ ] Research questions theory-linked
+- [ ] Sampling strategy justified
+- [ ] Instruments described
+- [ ] Ethics approval pathway identified
+- [ ] Mixed methods rationale (if applicable)
+- [ ] Generalizability discussed
+- [ ] Practical significance clear
+
+---
+
+## Language-Specific Checks
+
+### English Proposals
+- [ ] British/American English consistent
+- [ ] Grammar correct
+- [ ] Spelling accurate
+- [ ] Punctuation proper
+- [ ] Articles (a/an/the) used correctly
+- [ ] Subject-verb agreement
+
+### Chinese Proposals (中文)
+- [ ] 学术语体规范
+- [ ] 无口语化表达
+- [ ] 标点符号正确
+- [ ] 适当使用连接词
+- [ ] Hedging 表达适当
+- [ ] 引用格式符合 GB/T 7714
+
+---
+
+## Final Review
+
+### Coherence
+- [ ] Title matches content
+- [ ] Abstract summarizes accurately
+- [ ] Research questions answered by methodology
+- [ ] Timeline matches scope
+- [ ] Significance matches contributions
+
+### Completeness
+- [ ] All sections address their purpose
+- [ ] No placeholder text remaining
+- [ ] All [brackets] filled in
+- [ ] No "TBD" or similar markers
+- [ ] No missing references
+
+### Readability
+- [ ] Clear for intended audience
+- [ ] Jargon explained or minimized
+- [ ] Logical progression
+- [ ] Key points emphasized
+- [ ] Conclusion satisfying
+
+### Professionalism
+- [ ] Free of typos
+- [ ] Consistent formatting
+- [ ] Appropriate length
+- [ ] Citations complete
+- [ ] Ready for submission
+
+---
+
+## Scoring Guide
+
+### Rating Scale
+- **Excellent (5)**: Meets all criteria, publication-ready quality
+- **Good (4)**: Minor improvements needed
+- **Satisfactory (3)**: Several areas need attention
+- **Needs Work (2)**: Major revisions required
+- **Inadequate (1)**: Fundamental issues present
+
+### Section Weights
+
+| Section | Weight |
+|---------|--------|
+| Research Questions | 15% |
+| Literature Review | 20% |
+| Methodology | 25% |
+| Academic Writing | 20% |
+| Overall Coherence | 10% |
+| Technical Accuracy | 10% |
+
+### Minimum Standards
+- No section rated below 3
+- Overall weighted average ≥ 3.5
+- No critical errors in citations or methodology
+- Appropriate hedging throughout
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### Critical Requirements (Must Pass)
+1. Research questions are clear and answerable
+2. Gap in literature identified
+3. Methodology matches questions
+4. No absolute claims without evidence
+5. All citations present and correct
+6. Word count within range (±10%)
+
+### Common Issues to Check
+1. Vague research questions
+2. Literature review as list, not synthesis
+3. Methodology-question mismatch
+4. Overstated significance
+5. Missing or inconsistent citations
+6. Informal language
+7. Lack of hedging
+8. Poor transitions
+9. Undefined abbreviations
+10. Unrealistic timeline
+11. **Excessive bullet points** instead of flowing prose
+12. **Insufficient references** (must be ≥40)
+13. **Missing figure suggestions**
+14. **Appendix included** (should not have appendix)

package/dist/skills/research-proposal/references/STRUCTURE_GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,398 @@
+# Research Proposal Structure Guide
+
+Detailed writing guidance for each section of a PhD research proposal.
+
+---
+
+## Title
+
+### Purpose
+Capture the essence of your research in a concise, informative phrase.
+
+### Guidelines
+- **Length**: 10-15 words maximum
+- **Include**: Key concepts, research object, methodological approach
+- **Avoid**: Abbreviations (unless universally known), questions, clever wordplay
+
+### Structure Template
+```
+[Method/Approach] for [Research Object/Problem] in [Context/Domain]
+```
+
+### Examples
+
+**Good Titles:**
+- "Deep Learning Approaches for Early Detection of Cardiac Arrhythmias in Wearable ECG Signals"
+- "Sustainable Urban Development: A Comparative Analysis of Green Infrastructure Policies in Asian Megacities"
+- "Narrative Identity Formation in Digital Spaces: A Longitudinal Study of Young Adult Bloggers"
+
+**Avoid:**
+- "A Study of Machine Learning" (too vague)
+- "Can AI Save Healthcare?" (question format)
+- "The Future of Cities" (too broad)
+
+---
+
+## Abstract (150-300 words, 5-10%)
+
+### Purpose
+Provide a complete overview of your proposal that can stand alone.
+
+### Required Elements
+1. **Context/Background** (1-2 sentences)
+   - Why this research matters
+   - Current state of the field
+
+2. **Research Problem** (1-2 sentences)
+   - Specific gap or issue addressed
+   - Why existing solutions are insufficient
+
+3. **Research Questions/Objectives** (1-2 sentences)
+   - Clear statement of what you will investigate
+   - Primary and secondary objectives
+
+4. **Methodology** (2-3 sentences)
+   - Research design approach
+   - Key methods for data collection/analysis
+
+5. **Expected Significance** (1-2 sentences)
+   - Anticipated contributions
+   - Potential impact
+
+### Writing Tips
+- Write the abstract LAST (after completing all sections)
+- Use present tense for established facts
+- Use future tense for proposed work
+- Avoid citations in abstract
+- No undefined abbreviations
+
+### Template (English)
+```
+[Background sentence establishing the field]. [Problem statement identifying the gap].
+This research aims to [primary objective] by [approach]. Specifically, this study
+will [specific objective 1] and [specific objective 2]. Using [methodology], the
+research will [data collection approach] and [analysis approach]. The findings
+are expected to contribute to [theoretical contribution] and may have implications
+for [practical application].
+```
+
+### Template (中文)
+```
+[背景句，确立研究领域]。[问题陈述，指出研究空白]。本研究旨在通过[方法路径]
+[主要研究目标]。具体而言，本研究将[具体目标1]并[具体目标2]。采用[研究方法]，
+本研究将[数据收集方法]和[分析方法]。研究结果预期将为[理论贡献]做出贡献，
+并可能对[实践应用]具有启示意义。
+```
+
+---
+
+## 1. Introduction (500-800 words, 15-20%)
+
+### Purpose
+Establish context, articulate the problem, and present research objectives.
+
+### Section Structure
+
+#### 1.1 Background and Context (150-250 words)
+- Broad overview of the field
+- Recent developments and trends
+- Why this area matters (societal, scientific, economic importance)
+
+**Opening Sentence Strategies:**
+- Historical perspective: "Over the past two decades, [field] has undergone..."
+- Current state: "Recent advances in [area] have transformed..."
+- Problem framing: "[Issue] affects millions of people worldwide..."
+- Statistical hook: "According to recent data, [statistic]..."
+
+#### 1.2 Problem Statement (150-200 words)
+- Identify the specific problem or gap
+- Explain why this problem matters
+- Describe limitations of current approaches
+- Establish urgency or timeliness
+
+**Gap Identification Phrases:**
+- "Despite significant advances, [X] remains poorly understood."
+- "Current approaches fail to address..."
+- "A critical limitation of existing methods is..."
+- "The relationship between [A] and [B] has not been systematically examined."
+
+#### 1.3 Research Questions/Objectives (100-150 words)
+- State primary research question clearly
+- List 2-4 specific objectives
+- Ensure questions are answerable within PhD timeframe
+
+**Research Question Formulation:**
+
+| Type | Example |
+|------|---------|
+| Descriptive | "What are the characteristics of [X]?" |
+| Comparative | "How does [A] compare to [B] in terms of [C]?" |
+| Correlational | "What is the relationship between [X] and [Y]?" |
+| Causal | "What effect does [X] have on [Y]?" |
+| Exploratory | "How do [participants] experience [phenomenon]?" |
+
+**Objective Statement Format:**
+```
+The primary objective of this research is to [verb] [what] [how/why].
+
+Specific objectives include:
+1. To [verb] [specific outcome 1]
+2. To [verb] [specific outcome 2]
+3. To [verb] [specific outcome 3]
+```
+
+#### 1.4 Scope and Delimitations (100-150 words)
+- Define boundaries of the research
+- Explain what is NOT included and why
+- Acknowledge limitations upfront
+
+---
+
+## 2. Literature Review (500-1000 words, 20-25%)
+
+### Purpose
+Demonstrate knowledge of the field, identify research gap, and position your study.
+
+### Section Structure
+
+#### 2.1 Theoretical Framework (150-250 words)
+- Key theories underlying your research
+- Conceptual models you will use or develop
+- How theories relate to your research questions
+
+#### 2.2 Current State of Research (200-400 words)
+- Summarize major findings in the field
+- Identify key researchers and seminal works
+- Trace evolution of understanding
+- Note methodological approaches used
+
+**Organization Strategies:**
+- Chronological: Trace development over time
+- Thematic: Group by topic or theme
+- Methodological: Group by research approach
+- Conceptual: Group by theoretical perspective
+
+#### 2.3 Research Gap Analysis (100-200 words)
+- Synthesize limitations identified in literature
+- Clearly articulate what is missing
+- Explain why this gap matters
+
+**Gap Types:**
+- **Knowledge gap**: "No studies have examined..."
+- **Methodological gap**: "Previous research has relied on [method], which limits..."
+- **Population gap**: "Most studies focus on [group], overlooking..."
+- **Theoretical gap**: "Existing theories fail to account for..."
+
+#### 2.4 Positioning of This Study (100-150 words)
+- How your research addresses the identified gap
+- What makes your approach novel
+- How you build on existing work
+
+### Citation Density
+- Aim for 15-30 citations in literature review
+- Balance classic works with recent publications (last 5 years)
+- Cite primary sources when possible
+
+---
+
+## 3. Methodology (500-800 words, 20-25%)
+
+### Purpose
+Explain HOW you will conduct the research and justify your choices.
+
+### Section Structure
+
+#### 3.1 Research Design (100-150 words)
+- Overall approach (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods)
+- Research paradigm (positivist, interpretivist, pragmatic)
+- Justification for chosen design
+
+**Design Types:**
+
+| Approach | Use When | Examples |
+|----------|----------|----------|
+| Experimental | Testing causal relationships | RCTs, lab experiments |
+| Quasi-experimental | Natural experiments | Pre-post studies |
+| Survey | Measuring attitudes/behaviors | Cross-sectional, longitudinal |
+| Case Study | In-depth understanding | Single or multiple cases |
+| Ethnographic | Cultural understanding | Fieldwork, participant observation |
+| Grounded Theory | Theory development | Iterative data collection/analysis |
+
+#### 3.2 Data Collection Methods (150-250 words)
+- What data will you collect?
+- How will you collect it?
+- Sampling strategy and sample size
+- Tools/instruments to be used
+- Ethical considerations
+
+**STEM Focus:**
+- Experimental procedures
+- Equipment and materials
+- Protocols and standards
+- Data formats and storage
+
+**Humanities/Social Sciences Focus:**
+- Interview/survey design
+- Participant recruitment
+- Document/archive sources
+- Observation protocols
+
+#### 3.3 Data Analysis Approach (150-250 words)
+- Analysis techniques and software
+- Step-by-step analytical process
+- How analysis addresses research questions
+
+**Quantitative Analysis:**
+- Statistical tests planned
+- Software (SPSS, R, Python)
+- Significance levels
+
+**Qualitative Analysis:**
+- Coding approach (inductive, deductive)
+- Analysis framework (thematic, content, discourse)
+- Software (NVivo, Atlas.ti)
+
+#### 3.4 Validity and Limitations (100-150 words)
+- How you will ensure validity/reliability
+- Anticipated limitations
+- Mitigation strategies
+
+---
+
+## 4. Timeline (200-300 words, 5-10%)
+
+### Purpose
+Demonstrate feasibility and planning competence.
+
+### Section Structure
+
+#### 4.1 Research Phases
+- Break project into 3-5 major phases
+- Define clear deliverables for each phase
+
+#### 4.2 Key Milestones
+- Important checkpoints and deadlines
+- Publication targets (if applicable)
+- Review/assessment points
+
+### Timeline Format Options
+
+**Table Format:**
+```markdown
+| Phase | Duration | Activities | Deliverables |
+|-------|----------|------------|--------------|
+| 1 | Months 1-6 | Literature review, Design | Review paper |
+| 2 | Months 7-18 | Data collection | Dataset |
+| 3 | Months 19-30 | Analysis | Draft chapters |
+| 4 | Months 31-36 | Writing, Revision | Thesis |
+```
+
+**Gantt Chart Description:**
+If including visual, describe key overlaps and dependencies.
+
+### Standard PhD Timeline (36-48 months)
+
+| Phase | Typical Duration |
+|-------|-----------------|
+| Literature Review & Design | 6-9 months |
+| Data Collection | 12-18 months |
+| Analysis | 6-12 months |
+| Writing | 9-12 months |
+| Revision & Defense | 3-6 months |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Significance (200-400 words, 10-15%)
+
+### Purpose
+Articulate why your research matters and what it will contribute.
+
+### Section Structure
+
+#### 5.1 Theoretical Contributions (100-150 words)
+- New knowledge generated
+- Theory development or refinement
+- Methodological innovations
+
+**Contribution Types:**
+- Confirming/refuting existing theories
+- Extending theories to new contexts
+- Developing new theoretical frameworks
+- Creating new methodological approaches
+
+#### 5.2 Practical Implications (100-150 words)
+- Applications to practice
+- Policy implications
+- Industry relevance
+- Societal benefits
+
+#### 5.3 Broader Impact (50-100 words)
+- Connection to global challenges
+- Interdisciplinary relevance
+- Long-term vision
+
+### Language for Significance
+
+**Avoid overpromising:**
+- ❌ "This research will revolutionize..."
+- ✓ "This research has the potential to contribute to..."
+
+**Be specific:**
+- ❌ "This will help society."
+- ✓ "The findings may inform clinical guidelines for early detection of..."
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+### Purpose
+Demonstrate scholarly engagement and enable verification.
+
+### Formatting Guidelines
+
+**APA Style (STEM, Social Sciences):**
+```
+Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx
+```
+
+**MLA Style (Humanities):**
+```
+Author Last, First. "Article Title." Journal Name, vol. #, no. #, Year, pp. #-#.
+```
+
+**Chicago Style (History, some Humanities):**
+```
+Author Last, First. "Article Title." Journal Name Volume, no. Issue (Year): pages.
+```
+
+### Reference Count Guidelines
+- PhD Proposal: 30-50 references minimum
+- Balance: ~60% from last 5 years, ~40% foundational works
+- Include variety: journals, books, conference papers, reports
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes to Avoid
+
+### Structure
+- Sections that don't connect logically
+- Missing or underdeveloped sections
+- Inconsistent depth across sections
+
+### Content
+- Vague or unmeasurable research questions
+- Literature review that lists but doesn't synthesize
+- Methodology that doesn't match research questions
+- Overly ambitious scope for PhD timeframe
+
+### Style
+- Informal language or colloquialisms
+- Absolute claims without hedging
+- Excessive jargon without explanation
+- Inconsistent citation formatting
+
+### Technical
+- Missing or incorrect citations
+- Undefined abbreviations
+- Grammatical errors
+- Formatting inconsistencies