Loading...
Loading...
Found 2 Skills
Critical analysis of research papers, academic manuscripts, preprints, and technical studies — evaluating methodology, claims-evidence alignment, contribution significance, and intellectual honesty. Produces coherent analytical responses (not checklists) that distinguish genuine weaknesses from standard field limitations. Governs intellectual posture: collegial reader, not adversarial reviewer. Triggers on: "critique this paper", "review this research", "what do you think of this paper", "analyze this study", "evaluate the methodology", "is this paper sound", "assess this research", "strengths and weaknesses of this paper", "does the evidence support the claims". Use this skill when the user provides a research paper, preprint, or technical study and asks for critical evaluation of its scientific merit, methodology, or contribution — not formatting, citation hygiene, or submission readiness (use manuscript-review for those).
Studies exemplar papers from a target venue and produces an original style-and-structure brief — fetches best-paper awardees and top-cited papers on demand (DBLP, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, arXiv, open-access ACM DL) and analyzes section architecture, contribution framing, evaluation patterns, and figure/table conventions. Use when the user wants to study best papers or award-winning papers at a venue, find the most-cited papers and how they are structured, learn how successful papers at a conference are written ("what do winning SIGSPATIAL papers look like", "analyze NeurIPS best papers before I draft"), or model a draft on a venue's strongest work. Copyright-safe by design - papers are fetched from legal open-access sources and processed transiently, never bundled, stored, or committed; the output is metadata plus original analysis. Trigger words - exemplar, best paper, award-winning, most cited, top cited, model paper, venue style, paper structure.