Evaluate

Academic Text Evaluator

Evaluate research paper text for logical flow, structure, clarity, and readability without modifying the original content.

When to Use This Skill

• Assessing the quality of research paper sections
• Evaluating logical flow and argument structure
• Providing feedback on clarity and readability
• Scoring text quality for academic writing
• Identifying areas for improvement in conference submissions

Target Audience

Graduate students, professors, and researchers writing for top-tier computer science conferences (e.g., OSDI, NSDI, SOSP, SIGCOMM).

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluate text across five dimensions:

1. Logical Cohesion

• Assess whether arguments progress naturally and convincingly
• Identify logical jumps or gaps in reasoning
• Check if sentences and paragraphs connect smoothly
• Verify effective use of transition words and phrases

2. Clarity and Fluency

• Determine if the text is easy to understand
• Check for precise and unambiguous language
• Assess overall reading fluency

3. Organization

• Evaluate information structure effectiveness
• Check if paragraphs are well-focused with distinct points
• Assess optimal ordering of ideas

4. Pacing and Detail

• Identify content that is too verbose or too terse
• Check appropriate detail level for the target audience

5. Reader Engagement

• Assess if readers can easily follow the narrative
• Verify that main points are clear and graspable

Scoring Guidelines

Provide an overall quality score (0-100) with these requirements:

• Linear consistency: Score should linearly reflect quality
• Proportional scaling: If one mistake reduces score to 90, nine similar mistakes should not reduce it to 0
• Impact indication: For each suggested modification, indicate score impact (e.g., "+5 points")

Feedback Format

Follow these principles when providing feedback:

Bad-first Approach

• Focus primarily on weaknesses and areas for improvement
• Only discuss strengths if the text is of very high quality
• Avoid praising adequate or mediocre work

Self-consistency

• If text previously scored 100 and hasn't changed, do not invent new improvements
• Maintain consistent standards across evaluations

Actionable Advice

• Provide specific, concrete suggestions
• Include examples when helpful
• Format: "The transition between paragraph 2 and 3 feels abrupt; consider adding a sentence to bridge X with Y. (+3 points)"

Important Constraints

• Do not modify the original content during evaluation
• Only suggest significant improvements that meaningfully impact quality
• Avoid pedantic or minor suggestions
• Penalties apply for suggesting non-significant modifications

Output Structure

1. Overall Score: (0-100)
2. Dimension Scores: Optional breakdown by the five criteria
3. Key Issues: List of significant problems identified
4. Specific Suggestions: Actionable improvements with estimated score impact
5. Strengths: Only if score > 85