Results for “epistemic-review”

Conduct systematic literature reviews by searching multiple academic databases, synthesizing findings, and generating professionally formatted documents with verified citations.

Search, summarize, and synthesize economics literature. find research gaps, position your contribution.

Reviews an academic paper using the NeurIPS review form with three reviewer personas, ensemble scoring, and reflection refinement. Extracts text from PDF, runs structured review, and outputs actionable feedback.

帮助用户撰写高质量的文献综述类论文。提供从选题、文献检索、评估筛选、结构规划到最终写作的全流程指导。适用于需要撰写独立文献综述论文或学术论文中文献综述部分的用户。

After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.

Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]"

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

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

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Provides reviewer-style audit and deep review for academic papers in LaTeX, Typst, and PDF formats, producing structured issue bundles, pass/fail gates, and revision roadmaps.

Embody the Stoic philosopher Epictetus as an AI persona, applying his practical methodology for handling emotions, desires, and adversity.

Routes quality reviews to specialized critic agents based on file type or flags, covering peer review, code review, and manuscript polish.

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

Use this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation. Trigger on queries involving paper URLs, uploaded PDFs, arXiv links, or requests like "review this paper", "analyze this research", "summarize this study", or "write a peer review".

Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice using WorkIQ to surface actual contributions and structure them into impact-focused writing.

PRISMA Scoping Review Pipeline

Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

VS-Enhanced Literature Review Strategist - Comprehensive support for multiple review methodologies Full VS 5-Phase process: Prevents Mode Collapse and presents creative search strategies Supports: Systematic Review (PRISMA 2020), Scoping Review (JBI/PRISMA-ScR), Meta-Synthesis, Realist Synthesis, Narrative Review, Rapid Review Use when: conducting any type of literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, finding prior research Triggers: literature review, PRISMA, systematic review, scoping review, meta-synthesis, realist synthesis, narrative review, rapid review

Eng manager-mode plan review. (gstack)

Conduct a structured literature review on a given topic by defining a search strategy, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting key findings, and synthesizing results into a coherent academic review. Use when the user requests literature review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

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."

Reviews trading strategy drafts for edge plausibility, overfitting risk, sample size adequacy, and execution realism, outputting PASS/REVISE/REJECT verdicts with confidence scores.

金融经济学实证论文计划书生成器。根据用户提供的研究方向，生成包含标题、假说、数据来源、实证策略、 预期结果表格、稳健性检验、异质性分析、机制检验等12个完整模块的研究计划书。 内置中国微观/宏观数据库（皮皮侠1599个数据集、马克数据377个数据集）和WRDS国际数据库索引， 自动匹配可用数据源。融合Edmans (2024) "Learnings From 1000 Rejections"的编辑视角作为质量护栏， 确保选题具有真正的边际贡献而非"just another determinant of Y"。 当用户提到以下任何情境时触发：写研究计划书、research proposal、论文开题、选题+计划、 帮我设计一个实证研究、empirical research design、我想研究X对Y的影响怎么做、 帮我找个能发表的选题、generate proposal、写一个可以投稿的研究方案、 研究设计、identification strategy、DID/RDD/IV研究设计。 即使用户只是描述了一个经济金融现象并想知道"能不能做成论文"，也应考虑使用此技能。

Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

English LaTeX academic paper assistant for existing `.tex` projects. Use this skill whenever the user wants to compile, lint, audit, or improve an English LaTeX conference or journal paper such as IEEE, ACM, Springer, NeurIPS, or ICML submissions. Trigger even when the user only mentions one paper issue, such as bibliography errors, grammar cleanup, sentence splitting, logic review, expression polishing, translation, title optimization, figure checks, pseudocode review, algorithm block cleanup, de-AI editing, or experiment-section review. Also trigger for "proofread my paper", "fix my LaTeX", "prepare for submission", "check my manuscript", "improve my writing", `algorithm2e`, `algorithmicx`, `algpseudocodex`, `Require/Ensure`, or "Algorithm 1" when the user has a .tex file.

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process with 5 dynamically configured reviewers, producing structured editorial decisions and revision roadmaps.

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Clinical copy-editor that reviews text for communication issues. Use when user says review for prose or improve the prose

Use when a paper is complete or near-complete and a holistic pre-submission audit is needed. Cross-cuts text, code, tables, figures, results, citations, and reproducibility in a single pass and produces a persistent audit report. Works standalone on papers written outside the plugin.

Audit economic analysis outputs (fiscal briefings, macro briefings, market research, longlists, and other quantitative economic documents) against methodology standards, academic literature, and common errors. Runs structured checks across core categories including counterfactual, additionality, discounting, double counting, distributional analysis, Aqua Book RIGOUR, and Flyvbjerg-style strategic misrepresentation detection. Returns a RAG scorecard with issues ranked by severity.

Turn interactive commit reviews back on for the current herdr workspace.

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.

实验判决门：Review LLM 独立评判实验结果 → 4 种判决路径 → 自动更新 claims confidence、ideas status、graph edges

Frame an epic as a testable hypothesis with target user, expected outcome, and validation method. Use when defining a major initiative before roadmap, discovery, or delivery planning.