Individual skill
research-mentor-review
Provide constructive, evidence-based research mentoring feedback on student manuscripts, proposals, analyses, code, figures, and presentations. Use for advisor-style review that teaches the next improvement without impersonating an advisor or making unsupported scientific judgments.
skills/research-mentor-review/SKILL.md
Source commit 3980282b717e36f032bf3b571c9b0136bd10ca3e
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- Yes
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Instructions only
- Last checked
- Nov 6, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 23
- Repository last updated
- Nov 6, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- agentic-ai Repository topic
- mechanical-engineering Repository topic
- research Repository topic
- skill-md Repository topic
- thermal-fluid Repository topic
- plugin Repository topic
- academic-writing Repository topic
- cfd Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- data-analysis Repository topic
- research Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 3,063 bytesagents/openai.yamlasset · 320 bytes
Read excerpt
# Research Mentor Review
## Purpose
Give the kind of feedback that helps a researcher improve independently: specific, prioritized, explainable, and tied to evidence, logic, and next actions. This is a mentoring workflow, not an impersonation of any advisor and not a substitute for authorship, supervisory judgment, or safety review.
## Review Workflow
1. Identify the deliverable, audience, decision it must support, available evidence, and the research stage.
2. Start with what the work currently establishes and what remains unsupported.
3. Review the highest-risk issues first: research question, novelty/gap logic, methods, assumptions, evidence quality, analysis, physical interpretation, and claim strength.
4. Then address communication: paragraph/slide logic, citation practice, figures, tables, reproducibility, code, and presentation clarity.
5. Convert each important critique into an actionable revision, validation, or question. Explain why it matters.
