Evaluates a preliminary research idea against a five-dimension framework (Higher, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Broader) plus idea-lifecycle and student-capability matching, paradigm-shift probing, and a fatal-flaws audit. Returns a reviewer-style verdict; non-STEM ideas route to substitute frameworks. Use when the user has a draft research idea and asks whether it is worth pursuing, asks to 'evaluate this idea', 'score this idea', 'assess feasibility', 'novelty check', 'is this a good research direction', or before committing to a paper scope.
75
92%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Low
Low-risk findings.
1 low severity finding. Worth noting, but not necessarily harmful.
The skill exposes the agent to untrusted, user-generated content from public third-party sources, creating a risk of indirect prompt injection. This includes browsing arbitrary URLs, reading social media posts or forum comments, and analyzing content from unknown websites.
The required workflow’s Step 2 includes running a “literature-search capability” (web/scholarly search or public APIs) and then using retrieved works’ metadata (titles/authors/years) to ground novelty, which can pull in outsider-authored web content into the agent’s LLM context via the runtime literature-retrieval results.
aff5de9
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.