---

name: scholar-evaluation description: Score and assess CS papers, proposals, literature reviews, and benchmark plans using a structured evaluation rubric. Use when a quantitative or semi-structured assessment is needed for research quality, novelty, technical soundness, empirical rigor, reproducibility, clarity, and submission readiness.

Scholar Evaluation

Use this skill when the user wants more structure than a free-form review but does not need a full venue-specific peer review.

Good Fits

• comparing multiple candidate papers
• grading a draft literature review
• evaluating a research proposal before implementation
• checking whether a benchmark plan is rigorous enough
• estimating whether a draft is close to submission quality

CS-Oriented Dimensions

Score or discuss these explicitly:

• problem importance and positioning
• novelty or distinct value
• technical soundness
• empirical rigor or evaluation adequacy
• reproducibility and artifact clarity
• writing clarity and organization
• risk areas that could block publication or adoption

Local Resources

• references/evaluation_framework.md
• scripts/calculate_scores.py

Use the script when a numeric roll-up is useful. Otherwise keep the evaluation semi-structured and explain the score rationale.

Working Rules

• Do not hide major flaws behind an average score.
• Separate missing evidence from poor writing.
• State what would most improve the work.
• Use scoring to support judgment, not replace it.

Default Output

When no format is requested, return:

1. dimension-by-dimension assessment
2. strengths
3. highest-impact weaknesses
4. overall readiness judgment