Menu

Individual skill

research-mentor-review

0upvotes

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.

plugins/hanhuark/mechanical-engineering-research-skill/skills/research-mentor-review/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit d780783eba4ecc7c8b9429f95c9362df95f07c61

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 4, 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)
1,537
Repository last updated
Nov 7, 2026
License
Apache-2.0

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
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.