[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DAJJ3Z0FD9VE5T57BD4DVZ":3,"skill-same:01M6DAJJ3Z0FD9VE5T57BD4DVZ":71},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":31,"publishedAt":46,"linkOnly":47,"markdownContent":48,"markdownBody":49,"frontMatter":50,"refName":51,"commitSha":52,"skillDirectory":53,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":54,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":55,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":56,"install":57,"resources":70},"01M6DAJJ3Z0FD9VE5T57BD4DVZ","scholar-evaluation",null,"Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback.","Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","Prekzursil","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54636077?v=4","01M6DACZ1PCQHD99SCR1YXG28B","Andrei Mihai Visalon","01M6DACZ670WZF535V3WYYSS4Z",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Flibrary\u002Fskills\u002Fscientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23,26],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000021","资料检索与研究",{"categoryNo":27,"categoryName":28,"taxonomyType":29,"taxonomyTypeDesc":30},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45],"Evaluation","scholar evaluation","writing","research","support","feedback","quality","work","proposals","evidence","community","methods","Citation","structured","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: scholar-evaluation\ndescription: Structured scholarly-work evaluation for papers, proposals, literature reviews, methods sections, evidence quality, citation support, and research-writing feedback.\norigin: community\n---\n\n# Scholar Evaluation\n\nUse this skill to evaluate academic or scientific work with a repeatable rubric.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Reviewing a research paper, proposal, thesis chapter, or literature review.\n- Checking whether claims are supported by cited evidence.\n- Evaluating methodology, study design, analysis, or limitations.\n- Comparing two or more papers for quality or relevance.\n- Producing structured feedback for revision.\n\n## Evaluation Scope\n\nStart by identifying the artifact:\n\n- empirical research paper\n- theoretical paper\n- technical report\n- systematic or narrative literature review\n- research proposal\n- thesis or dissertation chapter\n- conference abstract or short paper\n\nThen choose scope:\n\n- **comprehensive**: all rubric dimensions\n- **targeted**: one or two dimensions, such as method or citations\n- **comparative**: rank multiple works against the same rubric\n\n## Rubric\n\nScore each applicable dimension from 1 to 5:\n\n- 5: excellent; clear, rigorous, and publication-ready\n- 4: good; minor improvements needed\n- 3: adequate; meaningful gaps but usable\n- 2: weak; substantial revision needed\n- 1: poor; major validity or clarity problems\n\nUse `N\u002FA` for dimensions that do not apply.\n\n### 1. Problem and Research Question\n\n- Is the problem clear and specific?\n- Is the contribution meaningful?\n- Are scope and assumptions explicit?\n- Does the question match the claimed contribution?\n\n### 2. Literature and Context\n\n- Is relevant prior work covered?\n- Does the work synthesize rather than merely list sources?\n- Are gaps accurately identified?\n- Are recent and foundational sources balanced?\n\n### 3. Methodology\n\n- Does the method answer the research question?\n- Are design choices justified?\n- Are variables, datasets, participants, or materials described clearly?\n- Could another researcher reproduce the work?\n- Are ethical and practical constraints acknowledged?\n\n### 4. Data and Evidence\n\n- Are data sources credible and appropriate?\n- Is sample size or corpus coverage adequate?\n- Are inclusion, exclusion, and preprocessing decisions documented?\n- Are missing data and bias risks discussed?\n\n### 5. Analysis\n\n- Are statistical, qualitative, or computational methods appropriate?\n- Are baselines and controls fair?\n- Are uncertainty, sensitivity, or robustness checks included when needed?\n- Are alternative explanations considered?\n\n### 6. Results and Interpretation\n\n- Are results clearly presented?\n- Do claims stay within the evidence?\n- Are figures, tables, and metrics understandable?\n- Are negative or null results handled honestly?\n\n### 7. Limitations and Threats to Validity\n\n- Are limitations specific rather than generic?\n- Are internal, external, construct, and conclusion-validity risks addressed?\n- Does the paper distinguish speculation from demonstrated results?\n\n### 8. Writing and Structure\n\n- Is the argument easy to follow?\n- Are sections organized around the research question?\n- Are definitions and notation clear?\n- Is the tone precise and scholarly?\n\n### 9. Citations\n\n- Do cited papers support the claims attached to them?\n- Are primary sources used where possible?\n- Are reviews labeled as reviews?\n- Are preprints labeled as preprints?\n- Are citation metadata and links correct?\n\n## Review Process\n\n1. Read the abstract, introduction, figures, and conclusion for claimed\n   contribution.\n2. Read methods and results for evidence quality.\n3. Check the strongest claims against cited sources.\n4. Score each applicable dimension.\n5. Separate critical blockers from revision suggestions.\n6. End with concrete next edits.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# Scholar Evaluation: \u003CArtifact>\n\n## Overall Assessment\n\n- Overall score: \u003C1-5 or N\u002FA>\n- Confidence: \u003Chigh | medium | low>\n- Summary: \u003C3-5 sentences>\n\n## Dimension Scores\n\n| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Revision priority |\n| --- | ---: | --- | --- |\n| Problem and question |  |  |  |\n| Literature and context |  |  |  |\n| Methodology |  |  |  |\n| Data and evidence |  |  |  |\n| Analysis |  |  |  |\n| Results and interpretation |  |  |  |\n| Limitations |  |  |  |\n| Writing and structure |  |  |  |\n| Citations |  |  |  |\n\n## Critical Issues\n\n## Recommended Revisions\n\n## Evidence Checks Needed\n```\n\n## Pitfalls\n\n- Do not use the score as a substitute for concrete feedback.\n- Do not penalize a paper for omitting a dimension outside its scope.\n- Do not treat citation count, venue, or author reputation as proof of quality.\n- Do not accept unsupported claims just because they appear in the abstract.\n","# Scholar Evaluation\n\nUse this skill to evaluate academic or scientific work with a repeatable rubric.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Reviewing a research paper, proposal, thesis chapter, or literature review.\n- Checking whether claims are supported by cited evidence.\n- Evaluating methodology, study design, analysis, or limitations.\n- Comparing two or more papers for quality or relevance.\n- Producing structured feedback for revision.\n\n## Evaluation Scope\n\nStart by identifying the artifact:\n\n- empirical research paper\n- theoretical paper\n- technical report\n- systematic or narrative literature review\n- research proposal\n- thesis or dissertation chapter\n- conference abstract or short paper\n\nThen choose scope:\n\n- **comprehensive**: all rubric dimensions\n- **targeted**: one or two dimensions, such as method or citations\n- **comparative**: rank multiple works against the same rubric\n\n## Rubric\n\nScore each applicable dimension from 1 to 5:\n\n- 5: excellent; clear, rigorous, and publication-ready\n- 4: good; minor improvements needed\n- 3: adequate; meaningful gaps but usable\n- 2: weak; substantial revision needed\n- 1: poor; major validity or clarity problems\n\nUse `N\u002FA` for dimensions that do not apply.\n\n### 1. Problem and Research Question\n\n- Is the problem clear and specific?\n- Is the contribution meaningful?\n- Are scope and assumptions explicit?\n- Does the question match the claimed contribution?\n\n### 2. Literature and Context\n\n- Is relevant prior work covered?\n- Does the work synthesize rather than merely list sources?\n- Are gaps accurately identified?\n- Are recent and foundational sources balanced?\n\n### 3. Methodology\n\n- Does the method answer the research question?\n- Are design choices justified?\n- Are variables, datasets, participants, or materials described clearly?\n- Could another researcher reproduce the work?\n- Are ethical and practical constraints acknowledged?\n\n### 4. Data and Evidence\n\n- Are data sources credible and appropriate?\n- Is sample size or corpus coverage adequate?\n- Are inclusion, exclusion, and preprocessing decisions documented?\n- Are missing data and bias risks discussed?\n\n### 5. Analysis\n\n- Are statistical, qualitative, or computational methods appropriate?\n- Are baselines and controls fair?\n- Are uncertainty, sensitivity, or robustness checks included when needed?\n- Are alternative explanations considered?\n\n### 6. Results and Interpretation\n\n- Are results clearly presented?\n- Do claims stay within the evidence?\n- Are figures, tables, and metrics understandable?\n- Are negative or null results handled honestly?\n\n### 7. Limitations and Threats to Validity\n\n- Are limitations specific rather than generic?\n- Are internal, external, construct, and conclusion-validity risks addressed?\n- Does the paper distinguish speculation from demonstrated results?\n\n### 8. Writing and Structure\n\n- Is the argument easy to follow?\n- Are sections organized around the research question?\n- Are definitions and notation clear?\n- Is the tone precise and scholarly?\n\n### 9. Citations\n\n- Do cited papers support the claims attached to them?\n- Are primary sources used where possible?\n- Are reviews labeled as reviews?\n- Are preprints labeled as preprints?\n- Are citation metadata and links correct?\n\n## Review Process\n\n1. Read the abstract, introduction, figures, and conclusion for claimed\n   contribution.\n2. Read methods and results for evidence quality.\n3. Check the strongest claims against cited sources.\n4. Score each applicable dimension.\n5. Separate critical blockers from revision suggestions.\n6. End with concrete next edits.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# Scholar Evaluation: \u003CArtifact>\n\n## Overall Assessment\n\n- Overall score: \u003C1-5 or N\u002FA>\n- Confidence: \u003Chigh | medium | low>\n- Summary: \u003C3-5 sentences>\n\n## Dimension Scores\n\n| Dimension | Score | Evidence | Revision priority |\n| --- | ---: | --- | --- |\n| Problem and question |  |  |  |\n| Literature and context |  |  |  |\n| Methodology |  |  |  |\n| Data and evidence |  |  |  |\n| Analysis |  |  |  |\n| Results and interpretation |  |  |  |\n| Limitations |  |  |  |\n| Writing and structure |  |  |  |\n| Citations |  |  |  |\n\n## Critical Issues\n\n## Recommended Revisions\n\n## Evidence Checks Needed\n```\n\n## Pitfalls\n\n- Do not use the score as a substitute for concrete feedback.\n- Do not penalize a paper for omitting a dimension outside its scope.\n- Do not treat citation count, venue, or author reputation as proof of quality.\n- Do not accept unsupported claims just because they appear in the abstract.\n",{"name":5,"origin":42,"description":7},"main","a298c929b6cbd662e1fce54302ce520d5ceea1a5",".agents\u002Flibrary\u002Fskills\u002Fscientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil","2026-11-02 14:30:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":58,"prompt":68,"zipAvailable":69},[59,62,65],{"tool":60,"command":61},"npx","npx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill scholar-evaluation",{"tool":63,"command":64},"bunx","bunx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill scholar-evaluation",{"tool":66,"command":67},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill scholar-evaluation","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Flibrary\u002Fskills\u002Fscientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[72,94,123,150,164,179],{"skillNo":73,"name":74,"nameZh":6,"description":75,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":76,"categories":77,"keywords":78,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF7D7478R55P46REYH4QAC","clarify-requirements","Resolve genuine pre-execution ambiguity by scanning repo context, generating 1-6 grounded options, and asking 1-3 focused questions via AskUserQuestion. NOT for mid-task use (injection risk); NOT when the goal is already unambiguous; use to disambiguate vague prompts before any file edits.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fworkspace-hooks\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify-requirements\u002FSKILL.md",[],[79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93],"clarify requirements","clarify","requirements","risk","options","task","prompts","goal","scanning","use","context","repo","injection","execution","file",{"skillNo":95,"name":96,"nameZh":6,"description":97,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":98,"categories":99,"keywords":103,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF79CA4BHJS66J8EZDBPWJ","openmm-md","Run FREE, open-source, Windows-native GPU molecular dynamics via the openmm-md MCP (OpenMM + CUDA on the local NVIDIA GPU). Use for protein \u002F protein-ligand MD when you want a free stack or are on Windows without a Schrodinger license. Covers the full workflow (prepare, solvate, minimize, equilibrate, production, analyze, mmgbsa) AND an honest decision guide vs Schrodinger Desmond, including how to run Desmond legitimately on Linux or a cloud GPU with a real license. This is a deliberately LESSER free alternative and does NOT replace the schrodinger MCP tools. Do NOT use it to pick a free tool when a validated FEP+, WaterMap, IFD-MD, or Prime MM-GBSA result is actually required.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fmcp\u002Fopenmm-md-mcp\u002Fskill\u002Fopenmm-md\u002FSKILL.md",[100],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,88,118,119,120,121,122],"openmm md","how","decision","pick","linux","analyze","tool","stack","open","NVIDIA","gpu","license","workflow","windows","free","molecular dynamics","local","do","MCP",{"skillNo":124,"name":125,"nameZh":6,"description":126,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":127,"categories":128,"keywords":135,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF76C1MG85VEWP8VZCBNMN","visual-review","Take screenshots of web pages and UI using Playwright for visual review and iteration","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fvisual-review\u002FSKILL.md",[129,132],{"categoryNo":130,"categoryName":131,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000003","演示文稿",{"categoryNo":133,"categoryName":134,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",[136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,105,146,147,148,149],"review","visual","visual review","pages","web","false","iteration","take","check","slides","ui","screenshot","playwright","screenshots",{"skillNo":151,"name":152,"nameZh":6,"description":153,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":154,"categories":155,"keywords":156,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF73AQVCBZKEN0YXEX9FXP","status","Diagnostic status report — shows metaswarm installation state, project setup, and potential issues","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstatus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[152,157,158,159,160,161,162,163],"setup","report","project","installation","project setup","issues","state",{"skillNo":165,"name":166,"nameZh":6,"description":167,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":168,"categories":169,"keywords":171,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF6X6C2XB0P6GX76P7TTYV","start","Use when starting work on any task, when the user mentions metaswarm, or when the user wants to begin tracked development work","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstart\u002FSKILL.md",[170],{"categoryNo":101,"categoryName":102,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[166,172,84,173,174,175,88,176,39,177,178],"start issue","issue","ready","work on issue","user","work on","development",{"skillNo":180,"name":157,"nameZh":6,"description":181,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":182,"categories":183,"keywords":184,"publishedAt":46},"01M6DF6QMJ9AJKFKHHKRT005PQ","Interactive project setup — detects your project, configures metaswarm, writes project-local files","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[],[157,159,120,185,161,186],"files","interactive"]