research-proposal
De la autor
Use when the user has a research proposal (problem + proposed methodology + planned experiments) and wants it iteratively strengthened until it clears a passing grade. ScholarEval grades the proposal against the literature (Soundness + Contribution), a Judge scores that feedback 0-100 on a fixed rubric, and a Reviser rewrites the proposal to fix the worst points without diluting the research question; loops until the grade passes or the budget is hit. Not for generating a proposal from scratch, and not for running a literature survey on its own.
Instalare
npx skills add gaasher/Agent-Loop-Skills --skill research-proposal -a claude-code
Se instalează în .claude/skills/research-proposal/ · Fiecare comandă descarcă skill-ul direct de pe GitHub cu utilitarul open source skills.
Identic octet cu octet cu commit-ul scanat, cu licența depozitului și un fișier SOURCE.txt.
Vrei ca agentul să-ți propună skill-uri în timp ce scrii? Vezi cum folosești skill-urile din IDE.
Verificări de siguranță pe SKILL.md
Niciun avertisment.
De ce 80
aiqbench calculează scorul de încredere din semnale publice. Nu este un audit de securitate, așa că citește un skill înainte să-l instalezi.
Skill-uri similare
Cele mai apropiate de acesta prin ce fac și când sunt folosite.
- scholar-evaluationK-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skillsProvides qualitative-first, evidence-traceable developmental review of scholarly works and audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics with optional local quality controls. Never use for ranking people or consequential decisions.Știință★ 54.4K
- research-questiongaasher/Agent-Loop-SkillsUse when the user has a vague topic or area of interest and wants it sharpened into a few strong, novel, feasible research questions. Drafts candidate questions, scores each against a fixed rubric (Specific, Answerable, Novel, Feasible, Significant) with a light literature/web novelty check, and revises the weakest axis until enough questions clear the bar. Not for grading a full written proposal (use the research-proposal loop), and not for turning a question into testable predictions (use the hypothesis-generation loop).Știință★ 177
- scientific-writergaasher/Agent-Loop-SkillsUse when the user has a scientific draft (with its dataset, figures, and optional analysis code) and wants it iteratively revised until it clears a quality bar. Five specialist judges (figures, scientific content, style, formatting, code) critique the draft; a fresh, independent peer_reviewer grades it on those same axes (1-5 each → a percentage) with honesty guardrails; a scientific_writer revises prose, figures, and code — regenerating figures by running the user's plot command — until the peer-review score clears the threshold or the budget is hit. Not for writing a paper from a blank page, and not for a standalone literature survey.Știință★ 177
- sci-rebuttalbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-SkillsUse after Science reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.Știință★ 1.3K
- peer-reviewforyourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-SkillsStructured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.Inginerie★ 3.8K
- literature-surveygaasher/Agent-Loop-SkillsUse when the user wants a structured, saturating literature survey on a question — not a one-shot summary, but an evidence/contradiction matrix (sources × claims) built by iterative search until coverage stops growing. Each round expands the search (new sub-topic queries plus citation-graph walks), admits new sources, extracts their claims with verbatim snippets, and records where every source stands on each claim (supports / contradicts / qualifies); the feedback signal is how many new matrix-changing sources a round adds, and it stops at saturation, patience, or budget. The output is the matrix plus a synthesis of consensus, disputes, and gaps, every cell backed by a real citation. Not for grading a written proposal against the literature (that is a proposal-evaluation task) and not for generating new hypotheses — this maps what the literature already says.Redactare★ 177
Note și recenzii
—
nicio recenzie
Ai încercat acest skill? Notează-l ca să-i ajuți pe alții. Autentifică-te
Discuție
Intră în discuție. Autentifică-te