Skip to content
TrustedSkillsbeta
Back to all skills

Scholar Evaluation

Checked
jimmc414·vlatest·other

This skill analyzes text to assess its scholarly quality – useful for verifying research and identifying credible sources.

Repository

Install on your platform

Showing Claude Code. One command installs this skill into any of the agents below.

  1. 1

    Run this in your project

    terminal
    $ npx skills add jimmc414/kosmos --skill scholar-evaluation -a claude-code

  2. Uses the open-source skills CLI and needs Node.js. Add -g to install it for your user instead of this project.

What we know about this skill

Publisher

jimmc414

Taken from the source listing. We haven't verified who controls this account.

Install target

Live repository

Not pinned. Installing fetches whatever the repository holds at the time you run the command.

No human has reviewed this code. The checks below are a static scan of the files at one commit — nobody has run this skill or judged whether it works. A skill runs with whatever access you give your agent, so read the source before you install it.

Automated safety checks

scanned

This skill passed all 6 checks. We read its files at one commit and looked for the things that make a skill dangerous to run — not for whether it works.

  • Declares what it does: passed

    SKILL.md parses and declares a name and a description.

    SKILL.md exists, its frontmatter parses, and it declares a name and a description.

  • No undeclared network calls: passed

    Makes no network calls.

    Every host the skill dials — from its scripts, its config endpoints or the commands it tells the agent to run — is either well-known package and API infrastructure or declared in its own frontmatter. Links in documentation are not counted.

  • No obfuscated payloads: passed

    No encoded or obfuscated payloads.

    No base64, hex or compressed blob is decoded and then executed, and no encoded shell commands.

  • No credential access: passed

    Reads no keys, tokens, keychains or credential files.

    Neither the code nor the SKILL.md instructions read SSH keys, cloud credentials, keychains, token stores, browser cookie databases or dotfiles that hold secrets.

  • No pipe-to-shell installers: passed

    No pipe-to-shell or download-and-run installers.

    No `curl … | sh` pattern, in the code or in the instructions, that runs code fetched at run time.

  • Pinned to a commit: passed

    Scanned jimmc414/kosmos at 6cfe7f690d.

    The exact upstream commit SHA that was scanned is recorded, so the result refers to specific bytes.

Commit
6cfe7f690d
Manifest
kosmos-claude-scientific-skills/scientific-skills/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
Scanned
9 files, 3,871 lines
Copies in repo
3 — all of them scanned
This is a static scan, not a review. It reads the skill's files; it does not run them, and it cannot tell you whether the skill is any good or whether the code does what its description says. A skill runs with whatever access you give your agent.
What each check looks for →

About this skill

What it does

This skill, jimmc414-scholar-evaluation, provides capabilities to evaluate academic papers based on provided criteria. It can assess factors like relevance, methodology, and clarity. The tool aims to offer a structured assessment of scholarly work, potentially aiding in literature reviews or research selection processes.

When to use it

  • Literature Review: Quickly assess the suitability of potential papers for inclusion in a review.
  • Research Selection: Prioritize papers based on specific criteria when searching for relevant research.
  • Grant Proposal Evaluation: Provide a structured evaluation of existing scholarship supporting a grant proposal.
  • Course Assignment Grading: Assist instructors in evaluating student submissions or assigned readings.

Key capabilities

  • Paper evaluation based on provided criteria
  • Assessment of relevance, methodology, and clarity
  • Structured assessment output

Example prompts

  • "Evaluate this paper: [paper URL] focusing on its methodological rigor."
  • "Assess the relevance of this article to my research on [topic]: [paper URL]"
  • "Can you provide a structured evaluation of this paper, considering clarity and contribution? [paper URL]"

Tips & gotchas

The quality of the evaluation depends heavily on the specificity and clarity of the criteria provided. Providing clear guidelines will improve the accuracy and usefulness of the assessment.