Skill UI

This specialized tool is designed to curate and structure academic source material for long-form research papers. It takes paper topics, user preferences, search results, and bibliography entries as input. The output is a highly structured source pack, clearly identifying primary, supporting, and excluded sources, along with coverage notes to ensure research depth and methodological rigor.

This skill transforms raw notes, bullet points, or unstructured memories into comprehensive, professional performance reviews. It structures the output for various review types (Self-assessment, Manager, Peer, 360 feedback), ensuring coverage of key achievements, core strengths, constructive areas for growth, and measurable development goals. Ideal for annual reviews, mid-year check-ins, and formal performance documentation.

A comprehensive guide for addressing rigorous academic peer review feedback, especially for top-tier journals. It provides a structured, point-by-point framework for authors to revise their work, focusing on strengthening the core theoretical framework, integrating coverage gaps, establishing critical attitude, and maintaining scholarly balance. Use this when responding to major revisions or full-review referee reports.

This guide teaches researchers how to construct credible, high-impact synthesis exhibits for academic reviews (e.g., Academy of Management Annals). It focuses on creating framework figures, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and coverage exhibits that summarize existing literature, rather than presenting new primary data estimates. Essential for systematically structuring and communicating complex knowledge fields.

A comprehensive guide for structuring and executing revisions when responding to academic referee feedback, particularly for Annual Reviews of Economics (ARE). This method helps authors triage feedback (e.g., coverage gaps, balance, structure) and draft a clear, defensible response letter that strengthens the article's core economic proposition.

This skill guides the systematic gathering and structuring of literature for comprehensive academic reviews, such as an Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych). It ensures broad coverage by executing traceable searches (database sweeps, citation chasing) and building a detailed evidence matrix (one row per finding). This establishes a robust, documented base of evidence, allowing the user to focus their analytical contribution later without sacrificing completeness.

This guide details the critical process of revising a scholarly review article following feedback from journal editors or peer reviewers (e.g., ARPsych). It provides a structured methodology for addressing coverage gaps, ensuring balance, correcting inaccuracies, and maintaining the integrity of the manuscript's core argument (the 'spine'). It covers everything from point-by-point response letters to handling final copyediting queries.

A comprehensive guide for academic authors on writing balanced, unbiased, and rigorous literature reviews. It teaches how to manage the fundamental tension between comprehensive coverage (ensuring nothing important is missed) and selective emphasis (foregrounding the most critical arguments). The framework ensures fairness across diverse theoretical schools, methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, etc.), and competing findings, while explicitly guarding against self-citation bias.

This guide provides a rigorous methodology for systematically gathering, reading, and synthesizing vast amounts of sociological research for comprehensive academic reviews. It focuses on ensuring comprehensive coverage across all methodological modes (quantitative, qualitative, computational, and theoretical), allowing users to build a robust evidence corpus and synthesis matrix rather than merely summarizing individual studies.

A comprehensive guide for authors revising academic review articles, particularly for high-stakes journals. It teaches structured methods for addressing common referee feedback, such as coverage gaps, balance complaints, structural weaknesses, and accessibility issues. Use this guide to transform critical feedback into a robust, publishable revision plan, ensuring methodological transparency and scholarly rigor.

A comprehensive guide on structuring and writing the 'Related Work' and literature review sections for high-impact, comprehensive computer science journals. It emphasizes establishing the research gap (the 'delta'), structuring comparisons (Classification-Comparison-Gap), balancing literature coverage (classic vs. modern, local vs. global), and adhering to academic citation norms (e.g., GB/T 7714). Essential for authors needing to clearly define their novelty in a cross-disciplinary context.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to top-tier security conferences (e.g., IEEE S&P). It details best practices for constructing the 'Related Work' section, focusing on defining a clear 'security delta' statement, mapping coverage across multiple attack vectors, managing resubmission overlaps (40% rule), and verifying citation attribution using tools like dblp and IEEE Xplore.