Results for “scholar-evaluation”

Evaluate scientific manuscripts and grant proposals with structured, checklist-based peer review covering methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards.

从思想性、艺术性、观赏性三维度评估影视剧本并打分。适用于剧本开发质量评估、修改方向确定、项目立项前审查

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality by assessing experimental design, identifying biases and confounders, and applying evidence grading frameworks like GRADE and Cochrane Risk of Bias.

严格细致判断与评分故事文本，从市场潜力、创新属性、内容亮点维度分析质量。适用于小说初筛选、多维度评估打分

Polish English academic papers for SSCI journal submission. This skill checks grammar, improves readability, and enhances academic tone. Use when the user asks to polish, proofread, edit, or improve their English academic paper, manuscript, or article — especially when targeting SSCI, SCI, or other international journals. Also use when the user asks to "润色", "修改语法", "提升学术性", "polish my paper", or mentions their paper needs language improvement for journal submission. Always trigger on any request involving academic English polishing, even if the user doesn't explicitly say "SSCI."

Conduct expert heuristic evaluations of digital interfaces using Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics and domain-specific criteria.

Simulates a NeurIPS/SC/ICSE-style peer review with five reviewer personas (HPC, ML, Stats, Reproducibility, Devil's Advocate) that verify every claim against actual result data before submission.

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

Score Analyzer

Design grading plans. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with grading-plan related tasks.

Use when adapting academic findings for a public audience (op-ed, social post, podcast) and the simplification must stay evidence-faithful, avoid overclaiming, respect embargoes, and disclose AI assistance.