From nw
Critiques research documents across dimensions like source bias, evidence quality, replicability, priority validation, and completeness using flags and YAML templates.
npx claudepluginhub nwave-ai/nwave --plugin nwThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Load when reviewing research documents. Apply each dimension systematically.
Conducts structured peer reviews of research manuscripts, proposals, protocols, and reports. Evaluates methodology, statistics, reproducibility, bias, and scientific rigor.
Critiques requirements documents using dimensions for confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority validation in peer reviews.
Critiques research, plan, brainstorm, and QA documents for completeness, gaps, weaknesses, and quality issues using structured process with user preferences.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
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