Scholar Evaluation
Score and structure feedback on academic papers, proposals, lit reviews, and methods sections with a repeatable 1–5 rubric.
Overview
Scholar Evaluation is an agent skill most often used in Idea research (also Validate scope, Grow content) that applies a structured 1–5 rubric to papers, proposals, reviews, and methods sections.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill scholar-evaluationWhat is this skill?
- Repeatable rubric scoring dimensions from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), with N/A when a dimension does not apply
- Three evaluation scopes: comprehensive, targeted, and comparative ranking of multiple works
- Artifact types include empirical papers, theory, technical reports, reviews, proposals, thesis chapters, and abstracts
- Checks whether claims are supported by cited evidence and evaluates limitations
- Produces structured revision feedback rather than a single pass/fail vibe check
- Rubric scores use a 1–5 scale per applicable dimension
- 3 evaluation scopes: comprehensive, targeted, comparative
Adoption & trust: 1.2k installs on skills.sh; 210k GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You are drafting or reviewing scholarly work and cannot tell whether claims, methods, and citations meet a consistent quality bar.
Who is it for?
Solo builders validating research claims, comparing papers for a product decision, or tightening methodology and citation support before publication.
Skip if: Casual blog posts with no citations, pure code review, or tasks that need legal or medical professional sign-off instead of writing rubric feedback.
When should I use this skill?
Reviewing a paper, proposal, thesis chapter, literature review, or methods section; checking evidence and citations; or comparing multiple scholarly works.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You receive dimension-by-dimension scores and structured revision guidance scoped to comprehensive, targeted, or comparative review modes.
- Per-dimension rubric scores (1–5 or N/A)
- Structured revision feedback aligned to the chosen scope
- Comparative ranking when multiple works are evaluated
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Spans multiple journey phases - primary shelf plus alternate fits below.
Canonical shelf is Idea → research because the skill evaluates scholarly artifacts and evidence before you productize claims or cite sources in public docs. Subphase research fits literature review, citation checks, and methodology critique—not shipping code.
Where it fits
Score competitor and academic sources before betting your roadmap on a single cited study.
Review whether your proposal’s evidence and methods sections are strong enough to justify a build spike.
Evaluate a technical report that will become customer-facing security or architecture documentation.
Run a targeted citation and limitations pass before publishing a long-form research-backed post.
How it compares
A structured academic reviewer skill—not a general summarizer and not a live literature search integration.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is scholar-evaluation for?
Indie builders, technical founders, and agent users who produce or consume research documents and want repeatable, rubric-based critique inside their coding agent.
When should I use scholar-evaluation?
Use it during Idea research when vetting papers for a market or tech bet, during Validate scope when evidence must support a proposal, and during Grow content when publishing research-backed articles—pick comprehensive, targeted, or comparative scope accordingly.
Is scholar-evaluation safe to install?
It guides evaluation of text you provide; do not paste confidential or PHI into prompts. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing from the community bundle.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Scholar Evaluation
# 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