Agent skill

rubric-writer

Write a rubric-based peer review report (`output/REVIEW.md`) using extracted claims and evidence gaps (novelty/soundness/clarity/impact). **Trigger**: rubric review, referee report, peer review write-up, 审稿报告, REVIEW.md. **Use when**: peer-review pipeline 的最后阶段（C3），已有 `output/CLAIMS.md` + `output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md`（以及可选 novelty matrix）。 **Skip if**: 上游产物未就绪（claims/evidence gaps 缺失）或你不打算输出完整审稿报告。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 给可执行建议（actionable feedback），并覆盖 novelty/soundness/clarity/impact；避免泛泛而谈。

View SKILL.md on GitHub Repository
Stars 377
Forks 25

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills/tree/main/.codex/skills/rubric-writer

SKILL.md

Rubric Writer (referee report)

Goal: write a complete review that is grounded in extracted claims and evidence gaps.

Role cards (use explicitly)

Referee (fair but sharp)

Mission: evaluate novelty/soundness/clarity/impact with evidence-backed, actionable feedback.

Do:

  • Tie critiques to extracted claims and evidence gaps (not impressions).
  • Separate major vs minor issues; propose minimal fixes.
  • Keep tone calm and professional.

Avoid:

  • Turning the review into a rewrite of the paper.
  • Generic comments ("needs more experiments") without specifying which and why.

Reproducibility Auditor

Mission: identify missing details that block replication and fair comparison.

Do:

  • Ask for protocol details, baselines, ablations, and threat models where missing.
  • Flag underspecified quantitative claims (metric/constraint not stated).

Avoid:

  • Assuming details that are not present in the claims/evidence.

Role prompt: Referee Report Writer

text
You are writing a referee report.

Your job is to be useful to authors and reviewers:
- summarize contributions (bounded)
- evaluate novelty/soundness/clarity/impact
- list actionable major concerns (problem -> why it matters -> minimal fix)
- list minor comments

Constraints:
- ground critique in output/CLAIMS.md and output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md
- avoid vague requests; specify the missing baseline/metric/protocol detail

Style:
- professional, concise, specific

Inputs

Required:

  • output/CLAIMS.md
  • output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md

Optional:

  • output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md
  • DECISIONS.md (if you have reviewer constraints/format)

Outputs

  • output/REVIEW.md

Workflow

  1. If DECISIONS.md exists, follow any required reviewer format/constraints.

  2. One-paragraph summary (bounded)

    • Summarize the paper’s goal + main contributions using output/CLAIMS.md.

  3. Rubric sections

    • Novelty: reference output/NOVELTY_MATRIX.md (if present) and/or the related work discussion.
    • Soundness: reference the concrete gaps from output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md.
    • Clarity: identify the top issues that block understanding/reproduction.
    • Impact: discuss likely relevance if the issues were fixed.

  4. Actionable feedback

    • Major concerns: each with “problem → why it matters → minimal fix”.
    • Minor comments: clarity, presentation, missing details.

  5. Final recommendation

    • Choose a decision label and justify it primarily via soundness + evidence quality.

Mini examples (actionable feedback)

Major concern template (good):

  • Problem: The main performance claim is underspecified (task/metric/budget not stated).
  • Why it matters: Without a fixed protocol, comparisons to baselines are not interpretable.
  • Minimal fix: Add a table that lists task, metric definition, budget/tool access assumptions, and seeds; rerun the main comparison under that protocol.

Generic (bad):

  • The paper needs more experiments.

Definition of Done

  • output/REVIEW.md covers novelty/soundness/clarity/impact.
  • Major concerns are actionable (each has a minimal fix).
  • Critiques are traceable to output/CLAIMS.md / output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md (not free-floating).

Troubleshooting

Issue: review turns into a rewrite of the paper

Fix:

  • Cut; keep to critique + actionable fixes and avoid adding new content.

Issue: review is generic (“needs more experiments”)

Fix:

  • Replace with concrete gaps from output/MISSING_EVIDENCE.md (which baseline, which dataset, which ablation).

Recommended Agent Skills

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

thesis-compile-review

对中文毕业论文进行编译、warning 分级、模板模式检查、数据与引用复查，并把问题回写成可继续迭代的 review checklist。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文编译检查, thesis compile review, warning 分级, 终稿复查, main.pdf 检查. **Use when**: 论文已经回写到 TeX 交付层，需要确认是否真正达到“可提交”的质量，而不是只做到能编译。 **Skip if**: 还处于中间层重构阶段，`chapters/*.tex` 尚未形成稳定交付稿。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里重构章节主线；如果发现结构问题，明确回退到上游修复。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

front-matter-writer

Write the survey's front matter files (Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Discussion, Conclusion) in paper voice, with high citation density and a single evidence-policy paragraph. **Trigger**: front matter writer, introduction writer, related work writer, abstract writer, discussion writer, conclusion writer, 引言, 相关工作, 摘要, 讨论, 结论. **Use when**: you are in C5 (prose allowed) and need the paper-like shell to stop the draft reading like stitched subsections. **Skip if**: `Approve C2` is missing in `DECISIONS.md`, or `citations/ref.bib` is missing. **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: no invented facts/citations; no pipeline jargon in final prose; no repeated evidence disclaimers; only use keys present in `citations/ref.bib`.

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

thesis-question-list

维护中文毕业论文的 `codex_md/question_list.md`：把本轮问题、边界、优先级、协作方案和验收口径结构化，作为整条 thesis pipeline 的控制面。 **Trigger**: 毕业论文问题清单, thesis question list, 论文修改清单, 本轮目标, 结构问题梳理, review问题整理. **Use when**: 你已经有一批材料或上一轮 review 结果，需要明确这一轮到底修什么、不修什么，并给后续重构与编译复查提供统一入口。 **Skip if**: 当前只是在做一次性局部措辞修改，且没有形成新一轮结构/证据/编译问题。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: 不在这里写正文；不把问题单写成长篇散文；每条问题必须可执行、可验收。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

novelty-matrix

Create a novelty/prior-work matrix comparing the submission’s contributions against related work (overlaps vs deltas). **Trigger**: novelty matrix, prior-work matrix, overlap/delta, 相关工作对比, 新颖性矩阵. **Use when**: peer review 中评估 novelty/positioning，需要把贡献与相关工作逐项对齐并写出差异点证据。 **Skip if**: 缺少 claims（先跑 `claims-extractor`）或你不打算做新颖性定位分析。 **Network**: none (retrieval of additional related work is out-of-scope unless provided). **Guardrail**: 明确 overlap 与 delta；尽量给出可追溯证据来源（来自稿件/引用/作者陈述）。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

protocol-writer

Write a systematic review protocol into `output/PROTOCOL.md` (databases, queries, inclusion/exclusion, time window, extraction fields). **Trigger**: protocol, PRISMA, systematic review, inclusion/exclusion, 检索式, 纳入排除. **Use when**: systematic review pipeline 的起点（C1），需要先锁定 protocol 再开始 screening/extraction。 **Skip if**: 不是做 systematic review（或 protocol 已经锁定且不允许修改）。 **Network**: none. **Guardrail**: protocol 必须包含可执行的检索与筛选规则；需要 HUMAN 签字后才能进入 screening。

377 25
Explore
WILLOSCAR/research-units-pipeline-skills

arxiv-search

Retrieve paper metadata from arXiv using keyword queries and save results as JSONL (`papers/papers_raw.jsonl`). **Trigger**: arXiv, arxiv, paper search, metadata retrieval, 文献检索, 论文检索, 拉取元数据, 离线导入. **Use when**: 需要一个初始论文集合（survey/snapshot 的 Stage C1），来源为 arXiv（在线检索或离线导入 export）。 **Skip if**: 已经有可用的 `papers/papers_raw.jsonl`，或数据源不是 arXiv。 **Network**: 在线检索需要网络；离线 `--input <export.*>` 不需要网络。 **Guardrail**: 只做 metadata；不要在 `output/` 写长 prose。

377 25
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results