From nw
Critiques research documents across dimensions like source bias, evidence quality, replicability, priority validation, and completeness using flags and YAML templates.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/nw:nw-rr-critique-dimensionsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Load when reviewing research documents. Apply each dimension systematically.
Load when reviewing research documents. Apply each dimension systematically.
Check: contradictory viewpoints included? | Multiple organizations/authors/perspectives? | Geographic/temporal diversity? | Sources truly independent (not circular)?
Flags: 60%+ from single org/author -> critical | All supporting same conclusion without counterpoint -> critical | Single geographic region -> medium | Clustered publication dates -> medium
Check: every major claim cited | sources reputable (peer-reviewed, official, established) | primary over secondary | technical sources recent (5 years) | confidence matches evidence
Flags: uncited claim -> high | blog/forum for factual claim -> high | all secondary sources -> medium | sources >5 years for tech -> medium | high confidence with 1-2 sources -> high
Check: search strategy documented | source selection criteria explicit | methodology transparent | confidence levels with rationale
Flags: no methodology section -> high | vague methodology ("searched the web") -> medium | no confidence ratings -> medium
For research driving architectural/strategic decisions.
Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck? (timing/measurement data?) | Q2: Simpler alternatives considered and rejected with evidence? | Q3: Constraint prioritization correct? (>50% solution for <30% problem = flag) | Q4: Key decision data-justified?
Flags: secondary concern addressed while larger exists -> critical | no measurement data for performance -> high | alternatives not documented -> high | prioritization not explicit -> medium
Output template:
priority_validation:
q1_largest_bottleneck:
evidence: "{timing data or 'NOT PROVIDED'}"
assessment: "YES|NO|UNCLEAR"
q2_simple_alternatives:
assessment: "ADEQUATE|INADEQUATE|MISSING"
q3_constraint_prioritization:
minority_constraint_dominating: "YES|NO"
assessment: "CORRECT|INVERTED|NOT_ANALYZED"
q4_data_justified:
assessment: "JUSTIFIED|UNJUSTIFIED|NO_DATA"
verdict: "PASS|FAIL"
Check: knowledge gaps documented (what searched, why insufficient) | conflicting info acknowledged with credibility analysis | all required sections present (summary, findings, sources, gaps, citations) | research metadata included
Flags: missing gaps section when gaps exist -> critical | conflicting sources unacknowledged -> high | missing required sections -> high | no metadata -> medium
review_id: "research_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-researcher-reviewer (Scholar)"
issues_identified:
source_bias:
- issue: "{specific description with numbers}"
severity: "critical|high|medium"
recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
evidence_quality:
- issue: "{specific claim or location}"
severity: "critical|high|medium"
recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
replicability:
- issue: "{what is missing}"
severity: "critical|high|medium"
recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
priority_validation:
- issue: "{mismatch description}"
severity: "critical|high|medium"
recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
completeness:
- issue: "{missing element}"
severity: "critical|high|medium"
recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
quality_scores:
source_bias: 0.00
evidence_quality: 0.00
replicability: 0.00
completeness: 0.00
priority_validation: 0.00
approval_status: "approved|rejected_pending_revisions"
blocking_issues:
- "{critical issue 1}"
iteration: 1
max_iterations: 2
npx claudepluginhub nwave-ai/nwave --plugin nwStructured evaluation of academic works (papers, proposals, literature reviews, theses) using reproducible rubrics for methodology, evidence quality, citation support, and research writing feedback.
Evaluates academic or scientific work using a repeatable rubric covering research questions, methodology, evidence, analysis, and limitations. Useful for reviewing papers, proposals, thesis chapters, or literature reviews.
Performs structured peer review of research methodology, experimental design, and manuscript quality. Use for manuscripts, preprints, proposals, or thesis chapters.