scholar-evaluation

Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback. Use when evaluating academic or scientific work — papers, proposals, methods sections, or evidence quality — against a repeatable rubric.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a lean, well-structured, actionable rubric with concrete probing questions, a clear review process, and a copy-paste output template. It is constrained only by the lack of worked scoring examples and an explicit re-score/validate feedback loop.

Suggestions

Add one or two brief worked scoring examples (a sample dimension verdict with evidence) to lift actionability to fully copy-paste-ready.

Add an explicit feedback loop in the Review Process (e.g., re-read weakest dimensions after scoring and confirm evidence before finalizing).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and operational throughout, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (When to Use, Rubric dimensions, Review Process, Output Template, Pitfalls) earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific guidance: nine dimensions each with 3-5 probing questions, a 6-step process, and a copy-paste output template; as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is acceptable, though it stops short of worked scoring examples.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 6-step Review Process is sequenced with implicit checkpoints (abstract -> methods -> citations -> score -> separate issues -> next edits); the destructive/batch cap does not apply to this read-only evaluation, but there is no explicit validate/re-score feedback loop.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files exist and the skill needs none; the ~160-line body is well-organized into clearly headed sections, satisfying the rubric's allowance that skills needing no external references can score 5 with well-organized sections.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description clearly and explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with a distinct scholarly-evaluation niche and strong natural trigger terms. It is slightly held back by noun-list specificity rather than concrete action verbs and a few missing common synonyms.

Suggestions

Lead with concrete action verbs (e.g., 'Score, compare, and give revision feedback on scholarly work') before listing artifact types.

Add common synonyms users might say, such as 'manuscript', 'peer review', or 'research article'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several specific evaluation targets (papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support) but relies on a noun-list of artifact types rather than distinct concrete verbs, leaving minor coverage gaps short of comprehensive.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals...') and when ('Use when evaluating academic or scientific work...') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural user phrases like 'papers', 'proposals', 'methods sections', and 'evidence quality', but omits common synonyms such as 'manuscript', 'peer review', or 'research paper'.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (scholarly/academic work evaluated against a repeatable rubric) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: affaan-m/ECC
Path: skills/scientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
Commit: d8409a4

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

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.