Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
k-dense-ai avatar

Scholar Evaluation

  • 959 installs
  • 32k repo stars
  • Updated July 29, 2026
  • k-dense-ai/scientific-agent-skills

scholar-evaluation is a rubric-based agent skill that runs structured ScholarEval assessments for developers and researchers who need systematic quality scoring of research ideas, drafts, or agent-generated scholarly out

About

scholar-evaluation implements the ScholarEval evaluation framework from k-dense-ai/scientific-agent-skills for systematic scholarly quality review. The skill supplies dimension-specific rubrics—starting with Problem Formulation and Research Questions—each scored on a 5-point scale where Excellent (5) demands specific measurable questions, significant literature gaps, appropriate scope, clear novelty, and compelling significance justification. Developers reach for scholar-evaluation when vetting research proposals, paper drafts, or LLM-generated academic content before peer review or publication. Agents apply the documented quality indicators and rubric tiers to produce structured, comparable evaluation scores across scholarly dimensions.

  • 5-point rubric for each ScholarEval dimension with explicit quality indicators
  • Evaluates Problem Formulation, Research Questions, Methodology, and Scholarly Contribution
  • Provides Excellent (5) through Poor (1) tier definitions for consistent scoring
  • Enables systematic side-by-side comparison of multiple research proposals or outputs
  • Delivers severity-bucketed feedback that feeds directly into revision or rejection gates

Scholar Evaluation by the numbers

  • 959 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • +44 installs in the week ending Jul 29, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
  • Ranked #1,108 of 16,570 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Security screen: LOW risk (skills.sh audit)
  • Data as of Jul 29, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/k-dense-ai/scientific-agent-skills --skill scholar-evaluation

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs959
repo stars32k
Security audit3 / 3 scanners passed
Last updatedJuly 29, 2026
Repositoryk-dense-ai/scientific-agent-skills

How do you evaluate research quality with rubrics?

Run structured, rubric-based evaluations of research ideas, paper drafts, or agent-generated scholarly outputs.

Who is it for?

Researchers and ML engineers validating agent-generated papers, grant drafts, or research proposals with repeatable ScholarEval rubric scoring.

Skip if: Developers who only need grammar editing, citation formatting, or non-academic marketing copy without research-quality assessment.

When should I use this skill?

The user asks to evaluate a research idea, paper draft, scholarly agent output, or apply ScholarEval rubrics.

What you get

Structured ScholarEval dimension scores, rubric-tier ratings, and documented quality-indicator feedback for scholarly drafts.

  • Dimension rubric scores
  • Quality indicator assessments

By the numbers

  • Uses 5-point rubric scale with Excellent rated at 5
  • Covers ScholarEval Dimension 1: Problem Formulation and Research Questions

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Scholar Evaluation

Overview

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly and research work. This skill provides structured evaluation methodology based on peer-reviewed research assessment criteria, enabling comprehensive analysis of academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, and scholarly writing across multiple quality dimensions.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

  • Evaluating research papers for quality and rigor
  • Assessing literature review comprehensiveness and quality
  • Reviewing research methodology design
  • Scoring data analysis approaches
  • Evaluating scholarly writing and presentation
  • Providing structured feedback on academic work
  • Benchmarking research quality against established criteria
  • Assessing publication readiness for target venues
  • Providing quantitative evaluation to complement qualitative peer review

Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics

When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.

If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:

  • Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
  • Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
  • Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic

For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.

How to generate schematics:

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png

The AI will automatically:

  • Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
  • Review and refine through multiple iterations
  • Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
  • Save outputs in the figures/ directory

When to add schematics:

  • Evaluation framework diagrams
  • Quality assessment criteria decision trees
  • Scholarly workflow visualizations
  • Assessment methodology flowcharts
  • Scoring rubric visualizations
  • Evaluation process diagrams
  • Any complex concept that benefits from visualization

For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.

---

Evaluation Workflow

Step 1: Initial Assessment and Scope Definition

Begin by identifying the type of scholarly work being evaluated and the evaluation scope:

Work Types:

  • Full research paper (empirical, theoretical, or review)
  • Research proposal or protocol
  • Literature review (systematic, narrative, or scoping)
  • Thesis or dissertation chapter
  • Conference abstract or short paper

Evaluation Scope:

  • Comprehensive (all dimensions)
  • Targeted (specific aspects like methodology or writing)
  • Comparative (benchmarking against other work)

Ask the user to clarify if the scope is ambiguous.

Step 2: Dimension-Based Evaluation

Systematically evaluate the work across the ScholarEval dimensions. For each applicable dimension, assess quality, identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide scores where appropriate.

Refer to references/evaluation_framework.md for detailed criteria and rubrics for each dimension.

Core Evaluation Dimensions:

1. Problem Formulation & Research Questions

  • Clarity and specificity of research questions
  • Theoretical or practical significance
  • Feasibility and scope appropriateness
  • Novelty and contribution potential

2. Literature Review

  • Comprehensiveness of coverage
  • Critical synthesis vs. mere summarization
  • Identification of research gaps
  • Currency and relevance of sources
  • Proper contextualization

3. Methodology & Research Design

  • Appropriateness for research questions
  • Rigor and validity
  • Reproducibility and transparency
  • Ethical considerations
  • Limitations acknowledgment

4. Data Collection & Sources

  • Quality and appropriateness of data
  • Sample size and representativeness
  • Data collection procedures
  • Source credibility and reliability

5. Analysis & Interpretation

  • Appropriateness of analytical methods
  • Rigor of analysis
  • Logical coherence
  • Alternative explanations considered
  • Results-claims alignment

6. Results & Findings

  • Clarity of presentation
  • Statistical or qualitative rigor
  • Visualization quality
  • Interpretation accuracy
  • Implications discussion

7. Scholarly Writing & Presentation

  • Clarity and organization
  • Academic tone and style
  • Grammar and mechanics
  • Logical flow
  • Accessibility to target audience

8. Citations & References

  • Citation completeness
  • Source quality and appropriateness
  • Citation accuracy
  • Balance of perspectives
  • Adherence to citation standards

Step 3: Scoring and Rating

For each evaluated dimension, provide:

Qualitative Assessment:

  • Key strengths (2-3 specific points)
  • Areas for improvement (2-3 specific points)
  • Critical issues (if any)

Quantitative Scoring (Optional): Use a 5-point scale where applicable:

  • 5: Excellent - Exemplary quality, publishable in top venues
  • 4: Good - Strong quality with minor improvements needed
  • 3: Adequate - Acceptable quality with notable areas for improvement
  • 2: Needs Improvement - Significant revisions required
  • 1: Poor - Fundamental issues requiring major revision

To calculate aggregate scores programmatically, use scripts/calculate_scores.py.

Step 4: Synthesize Overall Assessment

Provide an integrated evaluation summary:

1. Overall Quality Assessment - Holistic judgment of the work's scholarly merit 2. Major Strengths - 3-5 key strengths across dimensions 3. Critical Weaknesses - 3-5 primary areas requiring attention 4. Priority Recommendations - Ranked list of improvements by impact 5. Publication Readiness (if applicable) - Assessment of suitability for target venues

Step 5: Provide Actionable Feedback

Transform evaluation findings into constructive, actionable feedback:

Feedback Structure:

  • Specific - Reference exact sections, paragraphs, or page numbers
  • Actionable - Provide concrete suggestions for improvement
  • Prioritized - Rank recommendations by importance and feasibility
  • Balanced - Acknowledge strengths while addressing weaknesses
  • Evidence-based - Ground feedback in evaluation criteria

Feedback Format Options:

  • Structured report with dimension-by-dimension analysis
  • Annotated comments mapped to specific document sections
  • Executive summary with key findings and recommendations
  • Comparative analysis against benchmark standards

Step 6: Contextual Considerations

Adjust evaluation approach based on:

Stage of Development:

  • Early draft: Focus on conceptual and structural issues
  • Advanced draft: Focus on refinement and polish
  • Final submission: Comprehensive quality check

Purpose and Venue:

  • Journal article: High standards for rigor and contribution
  • Conference paper: Balance novelty with presentation clarity
  • Student work: Educational feedback with developmental focus
  • Grant proposal: Emphasis on feasibility and impact

Discipline-Specific Norms:

  • STEM fields: Emphasis on reproducibility and statistical rigor
  • Social sciences: Balance quantitative and qualitative standards
  • Humanities: Focus on argumentation and scholarly interpretation

Resources

references/evaluation_framework.md

Detailed evaluation criteria, rubrics, and quality indicators for each ScholarEval dimension. Load this reference when conducting evaluations to access specific assessment guidelines and scoring rubrics.

Search patterns for quick access:

  • "Problem Formulation criteria"
  • "Literature Review rubric"
  • "Methodology assessment"
  • "Data quality indicators"
  • "Analysis rigor standards"
  • "Writing quality checklist"

scripts/calculate_scores.py

Python script for calculating aggregate evaluation scores from dimension-level ratings. Supports weighted averaging, threshold analysis, and score visualization.

Usage:

python scripts/calculate_scores.py --scores <dimension_scores.json> --output <report.txt>

Best Practices

1. Maintain Objectivity - Base evaluations on established criteria, not personal preferences 2. Be Comprehensive - Evaluate all applicable dimensions systematically 3. Provide Evidence - Support assessments with specific examples from the work 4. Stay Constructive - Frame weaknesses as opportunities for improvement 5. Consider Context - Adjust expectations based on work stage and purpose 6. Document Rationale - Explain the reasoning behind assessments and scores 7. Encourage Strengths - Explicitly acknowledge what the work does well 8. Prioritize Feedback - Focus on high-impact improvements first

Example Evaluation Workflow

User Request: "Evaluate this research paper on machine learning for drug discovery"

Response Process: 1. Identify work type (empirical research paper) and scope (comprehensive evaluation) 2. Load references/evaluation_framework.md for detailed criteria 3. Systematically assess each dimension:

  • Problem formulation: Clear research question about ML model performance
  • Literature review: Comprehensive coverage of recent ML and drug discovery work
  • Methodology: Appropriate deep learning architecture with validation procedures
  • [Continue through all dimensions...]

4. Calculate dimension scores and overall assessment 5. Synthesize findings into structured report highlighting:

  • Strong methodology and reproducible code
  • Needs more diverse dataset evaluation
  • Writing could improve clarity in results section

6. Provide prioritized recommendations with specific suggestions

Integration with Scientific Writer

This skill integrates seamlessly with the scientific writer workflow:

After Paper Generation:

  • Use Scholar Evaluation as an alternative or complement to peer review
  • Generate SCHOLAR_EVALUATION.md alongside PEER_REVIEW.md
  • Provide quantitative scores to track improvement across revisions

During Revision:

  • Re-evaluate specific dimensions after addressing feedback
  • Track score improvements over multiple versions
  • Identify persistent weaknesses requiring attention

Publication Preparation:

  • Assess readiness for target journal/conference
  • Identify gaps before submission
  • Benchmark against publication standards

Notes

  • Evaluation rigor should match the work's purpose and stage
  • Some dimensions may not apply to all work types (e.g., data collection for purely theoretical papers)
  • Cultural and disciplinary differences in scholarly norms should be considered
  • This framework complements, not replaces, domain-specific expertise
  • Use in combination with peer-review skill for comprehensive assessment

Citation

This skill is based on the ScholarEval framework introduced in:

Moussa, H. N., Da Silva, P. Q., Adu-Ampratwum, D., East, A., Lu, Z., Puccetti, N., Xue, M., Sun, H., Majumder, B. P., & Kumar, S. (2025). _ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature_. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16234. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16234

Abstract: ScholarEval is a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness (the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature) and contribution (the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research). The framework achieves significantly higher coverage of expert-annotated evaluation points and is consistently preferred over baseline systems in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support.

Related skills

Forks & variants (1)

Scholar Evaluation has 1 known copy in the catalog totaling 115 installs. They canonicalize to this original listing.

FAQ

What does scholar-evaluation score?

scholar-evaluation scores scholarly work across ScholarEval dimensions such as Problem Formulation and Research Questions. Each dimension uses rubric tiers up to Excellent (5) with explicit quality indicators for measurability, gap significance, scope, and novelty.

Can scholar-evaluation assess agent-generated papers?

scholar-evaluation supports structured evaluation of research ideas, paper drafts, and agent-generated scholarly outputs. Agents apply the documented rubrics and quality indicators to produce comparable dimension scores before human peer review.

Is Scholar Evaluation safe to install?

skills.sh reports 3 of 3 security scanners passed. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.

AI & Agent Buildingresearchagents

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.