codeply-cli 0.3.1 → 0.4.0

package/skills/scientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md

@@ -1,161 +1,161 @@
----
-name: scholar-evaluation
-description: Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback.
-metadata:
-  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.
+---
+name: scholar-evaluation
+description: Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback.
+metadata:
+  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.